Land Bill, 1946—Second Stage.

Mr. Counihan

I move that the Bill be now read as Second Time.

This Bill is another attempt to obtain common justice for farmers whose land may be compulsorily acquired by the Land Commission. The Bill requires very little explanation. It sets out in plain language what it purposes to do and it contains so bone for the lawyers— which must be pleasing to Senator Ó Buachalla. It does not in any way restrict the activities of the Land Commission. It does not propose that allottees or congests should pay more for the new holdings they may get. On the other hand, it very definitely implies that any land compulsorily acquired by the Land Commission should be paid for at the market value and it sets out a simple formula to show how the market value can be ascertained.

There is no question of the Land Commission going into competition to bid for land. If this Bill is adopted, the procedure will be that the Land Commission, on deciding to acquire a holding, will furnish to the inspector all particulars relating to that holding, such as annuities, valuation and other relevant details. The inspector would then examine the land and, like any prospective buyer, decide what the farm was worth. He would also take into consideration what it would make if sold at a public auction in a free sale and would also consider if there had been any land sold at that particular time in the same locality. Of course, this implies that the difference between the price paid to the owner and the price charged to the congest or allottee would be made up out of public funds. I want to lay particular emphasis on that, to show the Minister that there is no game to be given away. He seemed to think we were hiding something in the discussion on Senator Sweetman's Bill. The difference is to be made up out of public funds. All other responsibilities will still rest with the Land Commission. I am confident that, if this Bill becomes an Act, the Land Commission will carry out its provisions justly and impartially, as they are at present carrying out the provisions of the 1939 Act, which gives the market value to the owners of resumed holdings.

Senator Sweetman very clearly explained the difference between resumed and acquired holdings, but there seems to be still some confusion about the terms, and I would like to give my explanation of them. A resumed holding is one that was never vested in the owner under any of the Land Acts. It is a holding which was vested in the Land Commission under the 1923 Act and was not revested in the tenant, who still pays interest in lieu of rent to the Land Commission but who has got all or practically all the reductions just the same as a vested owner. It is a holding definitely retained by the Land Commission for the purpose of distribution.

As the owners of resumed holdings are guaranteed the market value under the 1939 Act, we need not be much concerned about them. What this Bill deals with are acquired holdings. That means, almost exclusively, holdings of tenant farmers who, themselves or their predecessors, paid rent to landlords and are now paying annuities to the Land Commission and whose land is vested in them. I should like to hear from the Minister the reason why the owners of resumed holdings are paid market value and the owners of acquired holdings must take a price fair to the Land Commission. Of course, I have no objection to the owners of resumed holdings being paid market value. It is only just and right they should be so paid. I may say that it was under an amendment of mine to the 1939 Act that that was done. That amendment was very vigorously supported by Senators Quirke, O'Callaghan, McCabe and O'Dwyer of the Government Party when the Land Act of 1933 was passing through Committee Stage. The Minister's predecessor, Mr. Boland, accepted the principle of that amendment and asked me to withdraw it on a promise to bring in an amendment on Report Stage to meet the position. His amendment was very much better than mine, as it gave greater security. Not only did it guarantee market value but it gave compensation for disturbance and it provided that a resumed holding could not be taken except for the relief of congestion in the immediate neighbourhood. I believed, and I am sure the majority of Senators at that time believed, that we were getting market value for any land acquired or resumed or taken in any way by the Land Commission. That was not so. It is difficult to understand why the difference was made.

The Minister said, when discussing the 1944 Land Bill, introduced by Senator Sweetman, that if Senator Baxter could define for him how the Land Commission could obtain land at what was really market value, he would do business. This Bill explains how the market value can be ascertained and, though the formula is not completely satisfactory, to the owners of land, it should, certainly, be satisfactory to the Minister, as it leaves the Land Commission judge, jury and executioner in the case. If it is accepted, I believe it will create more confidence and give more security to the owners of land which may be compulsorily acquired and to the 300,000 farmers—the people who, Senator Ó Buachalla says, have the monopoly of the land—who have been deprived of fixity of tenure and of the right of free sale by the 1923 Land Act and subsequent Acts. I believe it, also by implication, repeals the clause of the 1923 Land Act which says that the price of land payable by the Land Commission shall be a price fair to the owner and fair to the Land Commission.

The Minister said:—

"I feel sure that no injustice will be deliberately done to any citizen of this State by the activities of the Land Commission."

Injustices have been done and the Land Commission will admit that they cannot do anything else. They are a judicial body and are bound to carry out the provisions of the Land Acts. Until some of the clauses of the 1923 Act and subsequent Land Acts are repealed, they must obey the law as it stands. I am sure that Seanad will agree that it is bad enough to have a man's land compulsorily acquired but it is against all natural justice and Christian ethics to take his property, deprive him of his means of livelihood and not pay him full compensation. That is also the belief of the Minister, according to his statement in the Seanad:—

"I take the view that, when a man owns property, he should not be deprived of it without due payment and compensation."

If that statement represents the honest opinion of the Minister, let him put his views into the Bill. Otherwise, they will not count with the Land Commission.

I was glad to hear the Minister pay a just and well-deserved tribute to his predecessor, the late Mr. Paddy Hogan. He praised him for his commonsense, his wisdom and the justice which he displayed when introducing the 1923 Land Act. He based his justification on that. I should much regret to say anything which would sully the name of the late Mr. Hogan, but he was not infalliable and he never pretended that he was. Though I could point out the justification he had for inserting that clause, I then believed, and still believe, it was a mistake to have the words inserted, "fair to the owner and fair to the Land Commission". I often discussed that point with the late Mr. Hogan. The Minister said that he was a great psychologist, and I agree. It was because he understood the farmers, particularly the farmers of the West, he put in that phrase. But he never meant that that provision should apply except in the congested districts. He often said to me that he did not want the farmers in the West from whom he was going to acquire land to go out of farming. He wanted them to continue, as they were the most suitable people for migration to Leinster and other parts of the country. It was because he wanted then to accept farms and not go out of business, he put in that provision. I thought he was wrong and I opposed it. I oppose it now and I ask the Minister to rectify that portion of the 1923 Act. I feel, as the Minister does, that any man who owns property should not be deprived of it without adequate compensation. I do not care who the owner is. Let him be a descendant of one of Cromwell's soldiers, a descendant of Conn of the Hundred Battles, like Senator Sir John Keane, or somebody like myself, who is lineally descended from Niall of the Nine Hostages—let him be a descendant of one of these, or let him be a descendant of Padraic OÁ Murchadha, pedigree unknown, if he has a legal title to property, he should be paid full compensation, if it is compulsorily taken from him by Government Order. I have purposely refrained from indulging in recrimination about the actions of the Land Commission. I do not blame the Land Commission. I blame the Government. The Land Commission do not want to do injustice to anybody, but they can do nothing else while the Land Acts remain as they are. They must obey thelaw. It is for the Minister, if he believes what he says, and for him alone, to rectify the position.

Mr. McGee

Senator Counihan suggested to me that I should second his motion and I am deeply grateful for the honour he has done me. In a passing remark at the same times, he advised me not to say too much. It was kind of him to warn me but, when I heard him going into questions of ethics and realised the high atmosphere in which he was moving when dealing with Niall of the Nine Hostages and other famous persons, I thought he was getting rather far from the subject matter of the lecture to which he treated me—to stick to the land, to keep to mother earth. I am perfectly prepared to support this or any other measure which equalised the position and restores confidence and security, which have disappeared under a system by which two citizens who are owners of the land are liable to be dealt with in different ways. Confidence and security will be restored when the State decrees that lands being acquired will be dealt with as those resumed. If I were speaking for a month, I could not clarify the position more. That is all I want—that lands being acquired be dealt with as lands that are resumed. The land agitations of the past 60 years or more, initiated by Parnell, were, generally speaking, looked upon with a certain amount of pride. Not long ago, Irish leaders were assembled in the West— the Taoiseach amongst others—to pay tribute to Parnell. In the wildest days of land agitation, nothing that could be termed confiscation was advocated. The farmers of Ireland, backed by the Labourers, paid 20/- in the £every time. That brought confidence and security. I was very much encouraged not long ago when I saw a Departmental scheme to multiply the number of veterinary surgeons in the country with a view to avoiding the loss—I speak subject to correction—of 10 per cent. of our live stock. And earlier on I saw a report by a member of the Agricultural Commission appointed by this Government which stated, I think the name of the individual concerned is Kennedy, that something like £300,000,000 is required to be invested in Irish land in order to equip it for the full production of which it is capable. Again I speak subject to correction, but I believe that is what I read.

The land of Ireland is not being half worked, it is not giving 50 per cent. of the employment that it should and could and would give. Can anyone expect a farmer and his labourers and his family to put into Irish land their whole souls and whole resources if it is possible to acquire land without paying the full market value for it? What encouragement is there to cement the drains and the gateways and the lanes? You have the cement, you have the sand, you have the workers. I have never seen a farm that was perfect. I have never seen a farm that more money could not be invested in. I have never seen a farm that could not give more employment, and I want to see so far as it lies in my power that every available shilling is put into agriculture. Some people blame the Irish farmers and say that they are a lazy lot. In most exalted company recently I heard it said that the output of the agricultural labourer was low, poor and small. It is for the State to promote conditions so that the output will compare with the best. It is said that workers in factories can produce £100 worth of goods as against £10 or £12 worth produced by the agricultural labourer. That is quite true, but the State can do much to uplift agriculture and give a firm footing to agriculture so long as it is within the province of the State to acquire land and pay the market value for it. I remember once listening to an Irish Minister for Finance introducing his Budget and saying that there were no vast fortunes to be got out of Irish land. Well, no one wants a vast fortune. I am not in favour of the millionaires to come in here and pay £20,000, £30,000 or £40,000 for a house with 30 or 40 acres of land. I am in favour of these men in the lanes and by-roads of the country who have ambitions for their children, ambitions to buy 20 or 30 acres of land for their children, but what encouragement do they get when the State will acquire that land possibly and pay a price for it that is below its market value? I think it is deplorable that after 25 or 26 years of an Irish Christian State we have not the common justice of paying the market value for what the State acquires as well as resumes.

Mr. Kingsmill Moore

When I read this not very voluminous Bill my mind went back to November, 1944, when this House was engaged in a debate on a Bill which was larger, so far as text is concerned, but which involved the identical point that is in this Bill. I recalled that the Minister replied to me in a singularly attractive and delightful speech. Going back over the Official Reports, I discovered a very unusual thing, that his speech was even more attractive and delightful than it appeared when I was listening to him. It was not only full of wit but it had more than a fair share of humour and it was stuffed with literary allusions which were more attractive because they were partially concealed. But I discovered that the Minister never came within an ass's bray of meeting the one point at issue in the Bill. It talked of shoes and shops and ships and sealing-wax and cabbages and kings, but never met the point that when a man is having his property taken from him he should get the market value. The Minister is like a dog being taken out to set a badger and, having been shown the badger's den, goes into the bush and emerges a minute afterwards smiling and wagging his tail with a rabbit in his mouth. It was a beautiful rabbit with great big ears and great long legs, a wonderful rabbit, in fact more like a hare. And then again he goes into the bush on the other side and comes out with another rabbit, a more beautiful rabbit still, but he will not go near the badger's den. I want to ensure to-day, so far as I can, that the Minister will go into the den, and I want to take the Minister, metaphorically, so to speak, by the back of the neck and put him into the badger's den. I want to make quite certain that the Minister will answer in this debate the point that I made on the occasion to which I refer. I am going to read, with the permission of the House, portions of what I said on that occasion. I am quoting from column 582 of the Official Reports.

I stated then that there were three principles which were involved in the Bill before the House. The first principle is this, that if a man owns property it should not be taken from him except for some very good reason. The second is this, that State necessity or the requirements of social justice may in some circumstances produce a state of affairs in which it is necessary to take from a man his own property. And I stated also that these principles were principles on which the whole of the House was agreed and were enshrined in a provision of the Constitution and that there was no reason for my wasting time on matters on which everyone in the House was in violent agreement. Then I went on to deal with the third principle, that is, if you take from a man that which is his own in order to meet State necessity or to meet social justice, you must pay him a fair market price for it. That is the only question on which there was a difference in the House and it is being brought more neatly before the House in this Bill. The Minister had spent his time dealing with points on which everyone was agreed and I hope he will deal now with this one point on which I think there can be no other opinion except that held by me. That is a healthy atmosphere. Dealing with the question of price on the last occasion, I quoted a number of decisions in England and Ireland and I quoted the following statement: "Neither public safety nor defence of the realm requires that the Crown be relieved of its legal liability to pay for the property it takes from one of its subjects." Another great judge said that "The feeling that it is equitable that burdens borne for the good of the nation should be distributed over the whole of the nation has grown to be a national sentiment." It is more than a national sentiment: it is an elementary principle of social justice. I then quoted from our own Court of Appeal where it was said that "In all legislation dealing with compulsory acquisition of land, the basis of compensation is the value of the property to the owner and not to the person acquiring it."

What is happening is this. Leaving aside the question of resuming holdings, a technical point which need not worry the House because it is not in this Bill, land is acquired from the people for the interests of the State. We are agreed that it should be acquired if it is the social policy. Now it may be necessary to acquire it but if the State wants to have it for the carrying out of its social policy it should pay for it and pay the price that the owner would be able to get for it if he were selling it in the open market. This may be placing a blister on the inhabitants of the State, upon Deputies and Senators. The money has got to be found and it has got to come from the public funds, that is, from you and me and everyone else. That is ordinary State policy. You have got to raise money which is necessary for social objects from the people as a whole. What is happening now? The unfortunate individual or individuals who happen to be selected as persons from whom land is to be taken are given sums from a quarter to a half of its market value. That is to say that this work is not being paid for by the State as a whole but by the individuals on whom the die has fallen and from whom the land is being taken.

The Minister, on the last occasion, rather hesitated to accept literally the statement that I made, that in the case of the acquisition of land the experience of practitioners who appeared most often in the courts and who had been consulted by me was that the value that was given was from one quarter to a half of the market value, and that in certain cases, if you took into consideration the fact that the annuity was capitalised and deducted from the purchase price, the position was actually this: that the money given to the man was less than what would have been the capitalised value of the annuity before the annuities were lowered.

His position, if the annuities had not been lowered, would be this, that you took land from that man, and that instead of giving him money for it you had a charge against him, so that he would have to pay money as well as give the land. That would be the position, because if you deducted the capitalised value of the unreduced annuity from the sum paid by the Land Commission it was really more than the sum paid. That, of course, would be an extreme case, but it would certainly be no exaggeration to say that, taken by and large, the man who has land acquired from him other than in the case of a resumed holding will get less than half of what he could have got if he sold it in the market the day before.

That is an affront to common justice. I say, take his land and give it to landless men, but compensate him on the market value and let the money paid be spread over the whole community, and not put it on the shoulders of those luckless people who happen to be selected to have their land taken from them. That is the only point in this Bill. Why should not the man from whom you are taking property get the market value for it that he could get the day before you acquire it, and why should not the money be made up by the community as a whole instead of mulcting that unfortunate man? I hope the Minister will be able to develop some philosophic or economic theory to explain why you take a man's property and do not give him what it is worth, and why the people as a whole should not bear the burden of a policy which is for the people as a whole.

Mr. Madden

Senator McGee, in the early part of his speech, exculpated himself lest he should make a long one, yet he spoke long enough. Speaking from recollection, I think it was Gladstone who said that the Land Acts of Ireland would never have been passed "but for the intensity of Fenianism". One recalls the sufferings and self-sacrifice made by the Irish people for the winning of the three "F's"—fixity of tenure, free sale and a fair price. Since the advent of national government in this country one realises the terrible injustices that have been perpetrated against the tenant farmers by the arbitrary and excruciating action of the Land Commission. Senator Kingsmill Moore, in his well-thoughtout and legally framed phrases, dealt with the injustice that is being committed against farmers by the compulsory acquisition of their land.

I have before my mind a case that is the very antithesis of justice. As a people we hold our heads very high as being the exemplars of a high standard of Christian justice and ethics. This particular case that I have in mind occurred in 1927 or 1929. The farmer involved lived not far from me. He was a progressive farmer and was an industrious man. He gave very extensive employment, and was most helpful by giving the use of his machinery to neighbours. To my knowledge he even went so far as to advance money to help to relieve the needy and the necessitous. He was a big cattle dealer. He had a couple of hundred acres of land, 75 per cent. of which was mountainy land, peaty and boggy. He had adjoining him about 120 acres of a mountain, not 5 per cent. of which could be described as fertile or arable land. This was a very highly intelligent farmer who appreciated his responsibilities to the State. Before acquiring this adjoining land he wrote to the Land Comsion pointing out that it was in the market, and asked if the Land Commission had any interest in it by way of acquisition for subdivision amongst uneconomic holders or landless men. The reply was that they had no interest in it and that he was free to buy or not buy it. He ultimately bought it and worked it for a number of years. He had a number of workmen employed on it. He drained it and tried to make it reproductive, but if he were to be working on it until Doomsday neither he nor the people who subsequently got it from the Land Commission could ever make it profitable. As I have said, he employed a lot of labour on it. He drained it, he tilled it and put up the necessary fences. Five or six years later he got a notice from the Land Commission telling him that he was to surrender the land as they had decided to acquire it for subdivision amongst uneconomic holders. He went into court and fought the case at great expense to himself. He won the first round of the contest on the equities of his case but, as we know, individuals cannot fight a Government indefinitely. Subsequently the Land Commission beat him and compulsorily acquired the land.

A case of that sort is disgusting; it is tragic and unjust. The money that he received from the Land Commission was not at all comparable to the price that he had paid for the land. Since cases of that sort have occurred in the country, it is surely a matter of grave and pressing urgency that a Bill such as this should be introduced by Senator Counihan so as to save tenant farmers from an unjust invasion of their rights on the part of the Land Commission. If it is thought necessary, I can give the name of the man in the particular case I have referred to. Senator McGee and I operate as auctioneers, and I am quite certain that he can bear testimony to this: that farmers with a vested interest in their holdings and anxious to make provision for their children come to us to get their places sold privately—at prices which are much under the market value. When asked why they want to do that, they say that if their farms are offered publicly for sale the Land Commission will do what they did in the case of the West Limerick farmer —compulsorily acquire them and give a price that does not at all compare with the price which land is making in their localities.

I had one case quite recently. That is a bad atmosphere and there is a justifiable reason for it. When there is a bad case of a dangerous disease, the whole community has a certain amount of fear. On account of this one case, the whole atmosphere there was charged with the invading tyranny of the Land Commission. The man was unbeaten in two courts and finally beaten by the Land Commission, then his place was seized on an authoritative document from the Land Commission, although they did not want his place at all. I have cited this case, as it is better than talking fantastically here for hours. It justifies the Bill introduced by Senator Counihan. I trust my words may have some influence on the Minister, for whom I have the highest regard, whose honesty and capacity have been in evidence for so long. I am happy always when I see him—and that is not said in order to create any personal contact for any purpose. He is a Minister who has a strong mind and who carries out his purpose.

Mr. Hawkins

It is rather difficult to speak after Senator Madden as a rule. From the present discussion and from that on various other occasions, we find approval of the Government policy and of that of the previous Government, in acquiring land for land division to relieve congestion. That has been accepted by all the speakers this evening. We in the West are particularly interested, as in our part of the country there are too many people on the land of the type they have. It is our wish that the Land Commission should move more swiftly in acquiring and dividing land. While we desire that to continue and while it is accepted as the policy of all Parties, it is not our wish that it should cause injustice to any person or any section of the people. I feel that that is not the wish of the Government or the Minister.

Senator Counihan has referred to concessions he received from the Minister in relation to the amendments he proposed on the last occasion we had a Land Bill before the House. The main purpose of this Bill is to secure a market value for the land acquired. We have had many discussions as to how that market value can be brought about. I do not believe that Senator Counihan's suggestion to-night is a practicable one. If this Bill were accepted as it stands, it would entail many amendments to the Principal Act, so its acceptance by the House now would be impracticable. Knowing we are all sympathetic with the point of view that no injustice should be inflicted on any section of the community in any matter, I appeal to the Senator to withdraw his Bill, so that the Minister might have the matter considered with a view to having the Principal Act amended to meet the wishes of the House.

Mr. Baxter

It seems from the speech of the last speaker that we are getting on, though we are not quite clear as to the pace, which has been a snail's pace up to this. Senator Counihan does not move like a whirlwind himself, but at least he has caused a stir in the dovecotes, judging by the approach made by Senator Hawkins, who can be intriguing and diplomatic when he wishes and who can adopt another attitude when it suits the occasion. I do not know how far the Senator is representing the mind of the Minister and if we could have it more definitely and explicitly—I hope we will have it from the Minister —than it has been put by Senator Hawkins, that what has been embodied in the Bill will be policy henceforth, we would know where we stand.

While we have been battling for these rights for tenant farmers for a long time, we have not been running our heads against a stone wall. On the last occasion we had Swinburne's poems quoted so effectively against us that we made no inroads on the Minister as regards bringing him to do what we wanted done. It is gratifying to hear Senator Hawkins' statement from the Government front bench, apparently agreeing with Senator Counihan that it is not the wish of the Government to inflict an injustice on anyone in possession of land. Let this fact be remembered by Senator Hawkins and everyone else including the Minister, that grave injustices have been inflicted already and that they call for rectification. Cases were quoted on the last occasion to demonstrate clearly that the Land Commission—in accordance with law, no doubt—treated some tenant farmers in a fashion that was positively disgraceful and highly immoral.

In the world of to-day, when human rights and private property are being regarded as no longer a matter of any account, we as a people must be particularly careful. If private property is to be taken over for State purposes, the State must be very careful to pay its value to the last farthing. Cases have been cited here and have been brought to the Minister's notice outside, where grave injustices were inflicted. Senator Kingsmill Moore put the case admirably to-night. There are no differences on any side of the House as to the social necessity for a wider distribution of land. It is the social necessity and not the economic one that is important. It has hardly ever been quoted in support of the policy of land distribution that it would increase production. Looking back now, we realise that all the hedges, ditches and dykes on fine farms have reduced the area and in a variety of ways have made it impossible to carry out as economic production as was possible when the fields were larger. It was not believed there would be increased yields. If it be a social necessity to redistribute property, no one can justify an individual being made pay the price of that social readjustment. That is what we have been doing.

I hope the Minister will make it quite clear that this Bill is acceptable to him in principle. If he does so, we will be getting on. The total cost will be comparatively small. I do not know the number of holdings that might be acquired or the total amount that would be needed to pay a market price to the owners, but I am convinced that the total sum involved would be only a bagatelle in our total annual expenditure. The policy of discrimination on the part of the State has had a very unsettling effect in agricultural circles, amongst those people with an area of land about the size that would be attractive to the Land Commission.

There is no need to argue on the equities of the case, but it is not clear when we will have recognised by the Government the point of view so frequently and so vigorously expressed, namely, that the Land Commission have not been dealing fairly with some of the tenant farmers. How much longer must we wait before the law will be amended to ensure that, when land is taken by the State for a social purpose, its true value will be given to the owner and that the State will set the example and show that, when they want property for the benefit of the community, they will pay its true price?

Mr. M.J. Ryan

When Senator Sweetman's Bill on the same lines as this was before us on the 22nd and 23rd November, 1944, there was a very full debate. I spoke then and supported the Bill. I read my speech this evening in the Official Reports and I am satisfied that I made a good speech then—though I am saying it myself. I put forward all the arguments in support of this proposal. I said I was not a representative of agricultural interests but a lawyer and believed in social justice. It was from that point of view that I collected my arguments in support of the Bill, from the Constitution and from the provision made by the Lands Clauses Act, 1845, in connection with the granting of compensation for lands compulsorily acquired. I referred to the rights of the individual to hold property. I believed then and I believe now that persons whose property is acquired compulsorily by the State should not be damnified or put at a loss in any way. I said that the rights of persons to hold property, in other words, to the ownership of property, must be delimited by reason of the exigiencies of the State and for purposes of the common good. I also stated that the persons from whom the land was acquired should not be made pay for the common good, that that was a liability of the community as a whole.

Our present position was created by Section 25 (2) of the Land Act of 1923, which provided that, in fixing the price, the Land Commission—and, on appeal, the judicial commissioner—should have regard to the fair value of the land to the Land Commission and to the owner respectively. At that time, what was called untenanted land was subject to the provisions of that section, but since then the definition of untenanted land has been extended and, as far as I know, land which has been in the occupation of a family for hundreds of years and subject to a land-purchase annuity was deemed to be untenanted and to come within that Section 25 (2). That is a great hardship on a tenant farmer who may be a large holder of land. He is paying an annuity to the Land Commission. He may have a bank charge in addition or other burdens on the land but the price which is offered to him is so attenuated that, after he has discharged the redemption value of the land-purchase annuity in full and, perhaps, some small charge by the bank or the Agricultural Credit Corporation, he has practically nothing for himself. He has lost his land and his living and he has received from the Land Commission far less than he would have received in the open market. Out of the money awarded by the Land Commission, the land-purchase annuity and other charges must be redeemed. It is extraordinary that the State, while paying to the tenant farmer perhaps half the market value of his land, takes good care to take to itself the full redemption value of the land-purchase annuity. In making an allowance for the redemption value of the land-purchase annuity, it does not consider what is fair to the owner of the land whose land is being acquired and what is fair to the State. It pays itself in full and the farmer has to take whatever is left, which may be very little. In Section 39 (5a) of the Land Act of 1939, it is provided that, in resumption cases, compensation shall be on a market value basis. Comparisons are odious but it is very hard for the ordinary person to understand why land subject to a land-purchase annuity, which may have been in the occupation of a farmer and his family for hundreds of years, should be dealt with for the purpose of compensation under Section 25 (2) of the Land Act of 1923, while land which is being resumed is paid for on a market value basis. The provisions in the 1939 Act, that lands resumed should be paid for on market value, have raised this whole question in an acute form. The ordinary person cannot see why one type of holding should be paid for at market value and another at less than market value. We all know that, no matter how philanthropic people may be, if they supply milk for the poor, they get paid by the State; if they supply medicines to local authorities for the use of persons in hospital, they are paid on a contract basis. Everybody in this country who contributes to the common good is paid except the farmer, whose lands are acquired at less than the market value. That is not in accord with social justice. I think that everybody in this House is agreed that the farmer should not be compelled to contribute to the common good out of his own pocket. Unfortunately, this section has been in force for almost 24 years. While a number of people have suffered injustice under its operation, it is never too late to mend.

Senator Counihan is most pertinacious where the interests of agriculturists are concerned. He is a most excellent representative and, if I may say so, he is never asleep. He is always vigilant in the interest of the farmers and, while his bringing this matter forward again, after it had been decided two years ago, might make some people jealous because of his activity on behalf of the farmers, it might irritate others who thought that the matter had been disposed of in November, 1944. Senator Counihan is keeping this a live issue and I think he has made progress since 1944. I am sure that greater progress will be made when the Government consider this question in connection with the forthcoming Land Bill. I do not know when that will be, but I think that a Land Bill in the future is almost as certain as anything can be. Since 1923 we have had a series of Land Bills and nobody can say that the 1939 Act is the last that will be passed. We had Land Acts in 1923, 1927, 1929, 1931, 1933, 1936 and 1939 and I believe that another Land Act is now due. I think that this question will be brought forward by the Government in its next Land Bill. There is no use in running the head of the Seanad against the Government wall. Unless the Government is prepared to support Senator Counihan's Bill it will never get beyond the stage of talk. I suggest to Senator Counihan that, having heard the discussion, including the contribution from Senator Hawkins, he should withdraw the Bill. I supported him in 1944 and I should be prepared to support him still, but I think that his purpose in bringing forward this matter in the form of a Bill was to give it greater importance than it would achieve as a mere motion. Motions are, evidently, forgotten, while Bills are landmarks.

I have suffered under that wrong-doing but I am prepared at all times to stand up against wrong-doing. For that reason, I support this Bill.

Mr. McCabe

All members are agreed on the point that land acquired should be paid for according to full market value. That is only right and fair. But I feel that it is very hard to determine the market value of land at the moment especially in view of the fact that a farmer whose land was being acquired could not very well test the value of it in the open market because prospective purchasers might feel that it would be acquired from them by the Government and that they would suffer the same fate too. That is a difficulty. No one would buy a farm of land or a big property that was liable to be acquired. They would be running a risk. Such a person of course would be prepared to give the full market value if there was a guarantee from the Government that he would get the same terms as for a resumed holding. There is another point. I agree with what has been said here earlier this evening that there is no encouragement for a man to carry out improvement work when there is the fear that he would not be compensated for it in the event of the Land Commission acquiring his property. That is a grievance that will exist so long as the present position remains. I hope the Minister and the Government as a whole will give full consideration to this matter.

Mr. S.T. Ruane

When this matter was last before the House in the form of a notice of motion, I supported Senator Counihan and I have great pleasure in supporting this Bill to-day. I feel that it only proposes to give to the owners of land the same rights as the owners of other property have at the present time—rights which no Government has attempted to take from them. There has been a question raised as to the difficulty of assessing market value. I think that Senator Counihan has been perfectly fair in his suggestion as to how this might be done. He brings in an inspector of the Land Commission to assist in the valuation. At the present time there is a housing shortage, and luckily some people have houses to rent and sell. Some time ago when dealing with the Rent Restrictions Bill the Minister would not consider putting restrictions in the matter of rents lest it might retard the building of new houses. Quite a number of people are living in congested holdings from which they are not getting a living. They exported their families when they grew up, and with the earnings of these families in distant lands they were able to keep the homestead together. If the Government would not do anything to discourage building in order to relieve the housing shortage, I do not see how it can stand over anything that would prevent land from being used to relieve congestion or how they defend compensation for acquired land at less than the market value. Some time ago I was made aware of a case in my own country of a widow whose family moved into the town, and because she was not able to work the small holding, she desired to sell it, but she was refused permission on the plea that the land was needed to relieve congestion in the district. I was subsequently informed that there was only one person wanting the land and, of course, he wanted it at less than market value. There would be no objection to his purchasing it in the open market, but he was anxious that the Land Commission would acquire it and he hoped to get it at the Land Commission price. Senator McGee mentioned a statement by Dr. Kennedy that it would be necessary to invest £300,000,000 in agriculture to make it productive. I see no better way of investing at least a share of this money than to utilise it in bridging the difference between the market value of holdings being acquired by the Land Commission and the price at which the commission at present fixes. The State has subsidised other social services, and it should be prepared to subsidise the acquisition of land needed to relieve congestion, because it is a social service of the utmost importance.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

It seems to me, not relevant.

Professor Johnston

This land question, by its effect on the mentality of the owners of the larger farms, tends to discourage the desirable quality of enterprise, to undermine their credit, to make them get out of their land and give less employment to labour than they would do if it was not for this confiscatory legislation. That sums up my attitude. I urge the House to keep in mind the desirability of so modifying the land legislation as to give the owners of larger farms real security of tenure, to make the three F's a reality for them as for their grandfathers and to bear in mind the effect that has on the economic tempo of the whole industry.

Mr. Baxter

Judged by Land Commission standards.

Liam Ó Buachalla

That price I can only describe as a panic price. The question is as to which of these prices is to be paid to the seller. This Bill is no help whatever, on that point, to those anxious to sell and who believe they will not get a square deal from the Land Commission. In the last analysis, it seems that there must be some authority to intervene and decide, as between all these prices, what is the fair price. Some Senators may say that the Land Commission is not to be trusted. Perhaps they can suggest some way whereby a fair price may be fixed. That is not done in this Bill, nor has it been done in the course of the debate. Consequently, we may be in a difficulty for want of a formula. Whatever doubts I may have had about the Land Commission, I am glad of the assurance recently given by the Minister in the Dáil that, as far as the Land Commission is concerned, there will be free sale of land. That satisfies me that sellers of land will get as fair a deal as it is possible for them to get.

Minister for Lands (Mr. Moylan)

When a man can read his speech 18 months after making it and get up and say that it was a good speech, he must have qualities of mind which I have not got. Whenever I have the temerity to read any of my speeches, I find them pretty bad. I am afraid my speech to-night will be very bad. I have been trying to get hold of a concrete statement by some Senator which would give me occasion for a sensible reply. I tore up my notes, finally, in despair. I should be completely in disagreement with Senator O'Dea's doctrine regarding "market price" and changes in that price. I disagree entirely with Senator Johnston that you can apply the quantity theory of money to the stabilisation of land values. I think that Senator Kingsmill Moore mixed his metaphors. Instead of getting me to produce rabbits out of a hat, he was trying to induce me to draw the badger. Miracle of miracles, I find myself in agreement with Senator Sir John Keane. I am very glad to find myself in agreement with him after many years.

When I spoke in the Seanad 18 months ago on the Land Bill introduced by Senator Sweetman—a Bill which was more elaborate in form than the present Bill but directed to the same objective—I was accused of levity, of not treating with due seriousness the matter at issue. I think it was Senator Douglas who suggested that I had great capacity for irrelevance, that I had almost reached Senatorial heights in that respect. I regret that my attitude did not impress the Seanad and that I gave members a wrong idea of my position in regard to the Bill. I shall try to make amends now. I shall simply refuse to follow the trails raised by various Senators on this Bill and stick to the point at issue.

We fully accept, in this country, the principle of private ownership—that a man has the right to security in the property he holds. We fully accept the idea that, when the State proposes to acquire property from a private individual for a public purpose, he should be paid the full value of that property. I wonder if that is progress. I have made that statement time and again and those are my strong, personal views. But I do not admit, and I do not think the State can admit, that there is a right to uncontrolled or irresponsible control of property. No matter how we frame laws of private ownership, we must recognise that land is so basic and fundamental a factor in the life of the community that the community has an overriding right which may, morally and legally, be put into operation if the need arises. It is only because that right must be admitted, we can acquire land from private individuals. The only justification, I think, for the attitude taken 23 years ago is that the community had a certain right which was being abused. The land was not being utilised for the benefit of the community and, on this question of acquisition, the State directs its attention to land which has been vested in the tenant. In general, we may say that it is by way of State aid the tenant of that land has been made owner in fee-simple. The State has spent an immense amount of money in bringing that condition about. In spite of many accusations made, in the Dáil, particularly, against the Land Commission and various Ministers of all denominations, that work was done in pursuit of a social purpose. Because it was, the beneficiary has a very definite commitment to the community and his acceptance of the work done by the State on his behalf implies a certain duty to the State.

The purpose of the Land Commission, as I have often stated, has been to create farms and place farmers securely upon them. It has not been the re-creation, in new hands, of an old, outmoded system of non-residential holdings and uncared for acres. Those are my views on that matter. A very definite security has been given to the owner of land. If the owner resides in or near his lands and works his holding in a reasonable way, he cannot be disturbed unless he is given a suitable, alternative holding and one of no less value. He has been given an armour and defence against acquisition or confiscation or whatever you choose to call it and the only chink in that armour creates itself when he does not carry out his duty to the community. As I have said, no democratic State can recognise irresponsible ownership. Sometimes, when speaking here, a Senator will say, in one breath, that the Land Commission is a very valuable organisation, exceptionally just, and that it is only because of the Government it will be unjust. In another breath, he will say that the blame is on the Land Commission. In the Dáil, the Land Commission is very often depicted as harrying, harassing and persecuting farmers. I want to repeat that it was created for a great social purpose and that it dealt with both rapacity and revolution. I think it has done a very valuable work.

Again, I want to argue that land is a basic factor in the life of the community. Anybody studying conditions here calmly and reflectively during the past seven years will realise that the very safety of the people is bound up with the land. If a man is to work his land properly, he must be secured in his holding. He can only be secured in his holding when he does his duty to the community, which has an overriding ownership.

I made a few notes, suspecting what would happen at to-day's meeting of the House. I have been hauled over the coals for congratulating Senator Sweetman on the speech he made on his Bill some time since. Nothing new has been said to-night. Senator Sweetman, on the last occasion, put the case for his Bill admirably and concisely. He said then:—

"These larger holdings were what was known as ‘retained holdings.' When the Land Commission considered it necessary in the national interest to take over any of these larger holdings, they did so by process of resumption."

There is a misconception there. "Retained holdings" may be small or large. They were retained for the purpose of improvement. They were not holdings of the better class as a rule. They were, generally, held on the rundale system.

Mr. Sweetman

Or holdings the purchase price of which was over £3,000.

Mr. Moylan

They were generally holdings under the rundale system. The Senator further stated:—

"Resumed holdings are, by and large—I made this assertion when opening this debate and it was not challenged by the Minister; if I was incorrect I am quite certain he would have challenged it—larger and more valuable holdings than acquired holdings.... Acquired holdings may be comparatively small. Yet, for the large holdings, you are giving a price higher than that which you are giving for the smaller holdings. I referred in my opening remarks to the manner in which the Land Commission might have to spend money on roads, fences, drains and such things. Under the Act, and not because of any desire on the part of the officials of the Land Commission, those expenses must be taken into account."

That is not quite correct. The true position is that, during the years 1923-46, 532 holdings were resumed and the average area per holding was 135 acres. During the same year, 1,772 estates were compulsorily acquired and the average area per estate was 301 acres. In other words, the average resumed holding is less than half the size of the average acquired holding. The Senator stated again:—

"The Minister told us that the result of Section 2, if the Bill were enacted, would be the cessation of land division. That is not so. It cannot be so."

When you consider the acreage of resumed holdings as against the acreage of acquired holdings and when you are aware of the fact that the price of resumed holdings was 60 per cent. greater that those estates even voluntarily given to the Land Commission you will see that it is going to make a tremendous difference in regard to the division of land. I must oppose the idea of being tied down to market value because I believe that if we admit the principle of market value, having regard to the price to which land has gone to-day, it is going to mean the complete cessation of land division and the relief of congestion in the western areas which we all want to abolish. Well I do not wish the Land Commission to be tied down to a particular form of words. I would be most anxious to see that full compensation should be paid but when resumption takes place, and we are bound to pay the market value, we have always the difficulty of a certain amount of collusion and a certain amount of bogus offers. I am convinced that under the existing law the Land Commission and the appeal commissioners will give all owners a price that is fair to them and will do so by a method which is as good and as true as can be determined by any human agency. I do believe that the acceptance of this Bill would increase the difficulties of the already difficult matter of land division and I ask the Seanad to reject the Bill, not because I do not want to pay a fair price, not because I do not recognise the right of private property but because it would restrict the Land Commission in the relief of congestion which we all desire to proceed.

Mr. Sweetman

In listening to the Minister I have been having a great deal of sympathy with him the whole evening. He has been here now for two and a half hours and it is obvious from his last remarks that he came in to oppose a Bill that he knew in his heart should not be opposed. In the second place, I am sorry for him, because he had to listen to a very great number of irrelevancies which, if I may be forgiven for saying so, came in greater numbers from the other side of the House. I found that in spite of all that, when the Minister got up to speak he impressed me. I thought from his opening remarks that he was going to take this problem to pieces and give us a solution, but he completely dodged the issue. He had come a little bit nearer when giving his view on the question of compensation, but just as he was arriving at what I was hoping was going to be a satisfactory point, when I could appeal to Senator Counihan to withdraw his Bill, the Minister sheered away again. I only hope that before he introduces this new Bill, which we are told about, that he will consider the matter afresh. For the purpose of enabling him to have certain points of view before him when he is considering the matter afresh, I would like to delay the House for a few minutes even at this late hour for the sake of getting them on record. I was going to address myself to the necessity of convincing the Minister that Senator O'Dea's viewpoint was entirely wrong from beginning to end, but I am delighted to find that the Minister was at one with me and that it is not necessary for me to deal with the matter. I was going to address myself, too, to the points raised by Senator Johnston, and again I find there is no necessity for me to discuss this.

I find myself completely unable to advance very much assistance in regard to the views expressed by Senator Ó Buachalla because they are so involved that I do not think anyone can follow them, although when I take the opportunity of reading his speech in the Official Report I may be able to interpret from it what was in his mind. He admitted in his speech that so far as land was concerned his knowledge of it was, as he said himself purely academical. So far as his strictures of Senator Baxter are concerned I do not think that he was aware of the provisions of the Land Act or the meaning of the words "market value" or else he must believe that the Land Commission were extremely dense in inserting meaningless words in the Act. I do not think the Minister believes when we take up the cudgels here to give a good battering to the Land Commission, that we think they are quite so dense as to insert in a Bill words as meaningless as Senator Ó Buachalla would have us believe. The value, I suggest, is perfectly plain. It is accepted that land is such a basic commodity that the utilisation of it by private individuals must be subject to overriding national interest and that its utilisation for social purposes is apart from its utilisation for the purposes of a particular individual. But this does not get away from the fact that if the property of a particular individual is going to be acquired for the benefit of the State that it is the duty of the State to see that fair compensation is paid to the man whose property is being confiscated. I am not using the word "confiscated" in the sense of it being taken for nothing. I mean it in the sense of it being taken at anything except the full value of it.

I am very glad to see that the Minister himself subscribed to this principle. As I understand him, the Minister and I are entirely at one in the conviction that it is right and proper, meet and just, that when land is being taken by the Land Commission, full compensation should be paid to the owner. When he had got to this stage, I seemed to see him looking behind him to see if by any chance there was an official of the Department of Finance who would prevent him from giving this fair and just price. I suggest to the Minister that in the future he should use his powers to ensure that the consent of the Minister for Finance will be forthcoming to pay the full value for land that is being acquired. I would ask him also to remember this point before introducing his new Bill and to remember that the amount that is now being paid by a tenant vested or unvested is not the redemption value of the annuities. The redemption value is fixed not on the amount that has been paid off the particular advance made to enable him to purchase his holding but by a fictional procedure in which there is relation to the existing value of the land stock in respect of the holding. Under the 1938 agreement, responsibility for the payment of this land stock has ceased. The redemption money does not go towards the redemption of the land stock but goes into the central Exchequer. Nevertheless, the amount which a tenant is asked to pay is not the money that is outstanding but the money that would be necessary at the present time to redeem the particular amount of land stock outstanding on the holding. There has been an advance in price of all gilt-edged securities and in 1947 the redemption value of an annuity is considerably more than in 1934 though since 1934 the tenant has paid 13 years' annuities. I am speaking in respect of only pre-1923 Act cases; of loans under the Ashbourne and Wyndham Acts. A tenant who redeemed his annuity in 1934 paid less than if he waited until 1947 even though he would have paid 13 years' annuities in the meantime. It is an entirely fictional and notional procedure, now that the agreement of 1938 was made, to relate the redemption value of the annuity to the price of a land stock that is no longer related to the annuity in question, so that when redemption value of the annuity is to be deducted out of the price which the Land Commission are going to pay the owner of an acquired holding it becomes a very relevant matter, one which is going to still further depress the price which the Land Commission are going to pay for these acquired holdings.

I want to refer the Minister to a particular aspect of sub-section (2) of Section 25 of the Land Act of 1923, the sub-section which fixes the price of untenanted land. At the end of that section, having given a direction to the judicial commissioner and to the Land Commission to fix the price, it says that, in fixing same, "regard shall be had to the fair value of the land to the Land Commission and the owner respectively". That phrase has always been construed to mean that regard shall be had to the future fair value to the Land Commission. It has always been understood that it was the value in the future to the Land Commission that was implied therein. During the course of the debate this evening I wondered whether it was intended that that particular sub-section would be construed in that way. I wondered was it not merely intended in 1923 that the same fair value to the Land Commission and to the owner meant a particular fair value at a particular time, and not a fair value in futuro. If it meant a fair value at a particular time, then there would be a great deal to be said for this—that it was the true value that was being considered, the value of the holding to the owner, unpuffed so to speak, because the Land Commission was going into the market to acquire it.

I confess that, often as I have read that sub-section, I had not considered it from that particular angle. It was a phrase that was used by one of the speakers to-night that set me thinking along these lines. I am wondering whether the Minister would be able to get some sort of formula—after he had arrived at what he has in his mind in respect to true value—on the lines of making certain that the value to the Land Commission was not to be the value in futuro, but the value immediately at the time the land was being acquired.

I hope that when the day comes for the Minister to introduce his Bill he will hearken to the words spoken to-night by Senator Counihan, and to the views put forward that he should repeal what is, in fact, an injustice. I hope he will give ear to the words spoken on his left when Senator Hawkins appealed to have the matter considered by the Minister. I hope also that he will also listen to the words of another supporter of his, Senator McCabe, who agrees entirely that the case for this Bill is a just one. I trust that he will listen to the views expressed in support of the Bill by Senators in all parts of the House, with few exceptions. The case for this Bill is a strong one because it is unjust to deprive a man of his property without giving him full, fair and adequate compensation. That is a principle to which the Minister subscribed in the earlier part of his statement, a principle which cannot be denied, and a principle which, in spite of the fact that the Minister has asked us to reject the Bill, he intends to implement. I have a shrewd idea that he intends to do that, and I hope that he will do so sometime in the very near future.

Mr. Counihan

I have very little to say in conclusion. The Minister's attitude has disappointed me greatly. I am not sorry that I brought forward the Bill. The speeches made in the course of the discussion showed that we have in this House reasonable men, men of common sense and fair play. I do not want to comment on those who spoke against the Bill. We know, of course, there are people who will try to find out what the attitude of the Government is to a particular measure, and will then try to bolster up the case put forward by the Government. That, of course, is their own business. The Minister laid a great deal of stress on the price of land at the moment. He said that it would stop action on the part of the Land Commission at the present time. I do not think that the price of land to-day is anything extraordinary if we compare it with what the price of land was ten or 15 years ago, with the value that money had in those days. There is very little difference in my opinion between the price of land to-day and what it was from 1923 to 1930—that is when you take into account what the value of money is to-day. I do not think that those of us who support the Bill can do anything more than, by our votes, register a protest against the injustice which is being perpetrated on the holders of resumed holdings, a policy which, according to the Minister's statement to-night, is to be continued.

Question put.

The Seanad divided: Tá, 15; Níl, 17.

Tá

Barniville, Henry L.
Baxter, Patrick F.
Counihan, John J.
Crosbie, James.
Horan, Edmund.
Johnston, Joseph.
Keane, Sir John.
McGee, James T.
Madden, David J.
Meighan, John J.
Moore, T.C. Kingsmill.
Ruane, Seán T.
Ryan, Michael J.
Sweetman, Gerard.
Tunney, James.

Níl

Clarkin, Andrew S.
Concannon, Helena.
Crowley, Tadhg.
Hawkins, Frederick.
Hearne, Michael.
Hogan, Daniel.
Honan, Thomas V.
Johnston, Séamus.
Kelly, Peter T.
McCabe, Dominick.
O Buachalla, Liam.
O'Dea, Louis E.
O'Donovan, Seán.
O Siochfhradha, Pádraig.
Nic Phiarais, Maighréad M.
Ruane, Thomas.
Stafford, Matthew.

Tellers:—Tá: Senators Crosbie and Sweetman; Níl: Senators Hawkins and Séan O'Donovan.

Question declared negatived.

Seanad Éireann díospóireacht - Wednesday, 22 Jan 1947