Martin Mansergh (Fianna Fail)

I wanted to pick up a small point. On the substance of the issue, it is not as simple as has been put forward. I am very conscious of this as out of the three proposed road routes for the N24 improvements, one would have crossed my land in Tipperary. I know the disruption and the pain that is caused. This is quite a general recommendation. It applies to the city as well as to the country without distinction.

In days gone by, the State was a good deal more ruthless. If one thinks back to Land Commission and land bond days, one got a fraction of the realisable nominal value of the bond under the Constitution even where there was compulsory acquisition by the State, such as when a council acquired rural cottages. Land values have escalated enormously.

If I understand this recommendation correctly, it is not even referring to roll-over relief. It refers to anybody whose land is compulsorily acquired, even if the value of that land has gone up a great deal in recent times. The level of land compensation for public transport or road schemes in city areas is shocking. On the Luas green line compensation of €2 million to €3 million was given for stretches of a few hundred metres. Is one saying that despite those windfall gains, the State is not entitled to apply capital gains tax? This carries worship of private property a bit too far.

Under the Constitution, and perhaps this was more adhered to in spirit than in letter in earlier decades, private property is subject to the common good. In a context where land values have gone up so much, there might be a case to be made where someone loses ten acres and goes immediately to acquire another ten acres, perhaps with very tight conditions. I can understand and sympathise with that argument. If one loses ten acres and intends to pocket the compensation, I do not see that as an injustice. Neither is it an injustice if the two acres have been taken off one, particularly if land values have escalated.