I propose to deal shortly with one or two points. The question of the price was debated at great length and it is a very important question, because whereas there may be complaints now as to whether land purchase is proceeding as expeditiously as it might the kernel of the situation is that in three, four or five years land purchase will be completed, and for sixty-seven years after that the tenants and the tenant-purchasers will be in occupation. It is much more important that their condition should be economic during the sixty-seven years in which they will be paying annuities than that they should get their holdings to-day or tomorrow. The section dealing with price is quite simple; it is the same section as appeared in the 1903, 1909, and 1923 Acts. It says that the price shall, in the case of an appeal, be ultimately decided by the Judicial Commissioner, who is a High Court Judge. He gets no guidance from the Act itself; he is merely told that the price shall be a fair price to the owner and to the Land Commission, the Commission, presumably, representing the tenant. It would be impossible to make the section more specific than that.
PURCHASE AND DIVISION OF LAND. - MOTION BY MR. RODDY (RESUMED).
Is the Minister speaking of tenanted land now?
Mr. HOGAN
Untenanted. No possible form of words could be devised which would get the agreement of any section of the House and which would cover the particular price which the Land Commission should give for different varieties of land. If any Deputy tries to find some form of words which would do so he will realise the difficulty at once. There is not so much difficulty about untenanted land. You buy the landlord's interest and you have a precedent established by the 1903 and the 1909 Acts. Untenanted land has nearly always been bought cheaply. There is only one interest to acquire, that of the owner of the fee simple. But there is this to be remembered, that even on the assumption that the same price is given for the same quality of land under the 1923 Act as was given under the 1909 Act you will have a much bigger annuity. Interest and sinking fund is now 4¾ per cent. Interest and sinking fund under the 1909 Act was 3½ per cent. If £100 an acre is given now the annuity is 95/-; if £20 an acre is given now the annuity is about 19/-. If £100 an acre were given under the 1909 Act the annuity was 70/-; if £20, it was 14/-. That is inevitable; it cannot be helped. I am not applying this figure of £20 to any particular quality of land; I am just taking that figure, and for average land any farmer will agree that £20 an acre is a very small price for the fee simple. Yet if you give such a very low price as £20, you must have an annuity of 19/-, whereas under the 1909 Act it is 14/-. That applies to land purchased at any price, and it is a great difficulty. I do not see any way out of it. You cannot reverse for the purpose of land purchase all the factors that operated in 1914. The point I am making is that even if land is now worth in money no more than it was worth in 1914 the annuity will be higher. It would have been possible, if you could get a state of sweet reasonableness in everybody, to have some bonus system. There was a bonus system under the 1903 and 1909 Acts, but we have none now. Looked at fairly and impartially from the point of view that every man is entitled to fair play, and that is the only point of view from which you can look at it, you must give a fair price.
This is not a question of a fair price. The price is based now not on the amount in bulk, but on the amount of dividends that he draws on his bonds.
Mr. HOGAN
I am talking of untenanted land.
It is the same thing. The owner is paid in bonds also.
Mr. HOGAN
So far as untenanted land is concerned, no rent is being paid out of it. It is fee-simple land in the possession of a landlord and is being purchased by the Land Commission. Ultimately in the last resort the Judicial Commissioner has to decide the price, and the only leading he gets from the Act is the section that says that the price is to be fair to the owner and to the purchaser. He must take into account the interests of both. For the sake of endeavouring to deal with the point without raising a contentious argument as to whether such and such a price is too high or too low—a point that could not be settled, because we are not clear as to what price we are dealing with—I take an average of £20 an acre. If the Land Commission purchase land at that price the allottee, who may be a landless man, or a tenant who has given up his holding, or a tenant who has got this land in addition to his holding, will pay 19/- annuity as against 14/- in the case of the 1909 Act, and as against 13/- under the 1903 Act. That is a difficult state of affairs, because the Land Commission as a whole must act on the assumption that any proprietor is entitled to get a fair price and, on the other hand, they must take into account what the tenant has to pay. It may have been that the ideal solution of that un-undoubted dilemma would be some bonus system, something that would reconcile the genuinely conflicting interests of the Land Commission and the owner.
I think that land is being bought fairly and reasonably under the 1923 Act by the Land Commission, and I think there is no danger that the prices being paid now will leave holdings uneconomic in any conditions that are likely to develop during the next 60 or 70 years, that is to say, the period for which annuities will be paid. That is an extremely important point. It is much more important than other points that have been raised and that have got much more attention and so much more time. With regard to tenanted land that is fixed. There is a certain reduction of 30 and 35 per cent. on the original rents, and so far as non-judicial rents are concerned the rent is fixed either by agreement between the landlord and the tenant or by the Land Commission, and in this case whether they be judicial or non-judicial the rents are extremely low, and there is the reduction of 30 or 35 per cent. That is a big reduction considering that the rents are the same as those that ruled before the war. Deputy Gorey said that his Party pressed the question of price very strongly during the debates on the Land Act. They did, but they pressed the point in connection with tenanted land, and for every hour that was spent on the question of price in connection with tenanted land I should say that there was not half a minute spent on untenanted land. While this Bill was going through the Dáil the question that agitated the minds of people was whether rents were to be reduced under the Act. That was not as important as the other question, namely, the question as to what price was to be given for untenanted land. So far as congests are concerned, the rents will be fairly reasonable, because you have to take their rent on the condition that it may be a little bit high, along with the rent of the old holding which will be lower as a result of the large reduction given under the 1923 Act. In dealing with the landless men the boot will begin to pinch. That is the question of the untenanted land.
When you come to the question of tenanted land you are faced with a more difficult question. You have other interests to deal with, that of the owner and that of the tenant, and the principle on which the tenant's interest is to be held was settled a great many years ago in the '81 Act, and has always been adopted ever since. It was laid down in the '81 Act that if a holding was being resumed from a tenant the tenant was entitled to get what is called a redemption price. It is not exactly the market value as we know it. It is very difficult to define it. It is the market value subject to certain considerations which make it slightly less. The question we had to decide when we were dealing with the Bill in the Dáil was whether we should alter that basis when resuming tenanted land. That would have been a serious thing to do, and I do not think it would be possible to get the majority of the Dáil or Seanad to vote for an alteration on that basis. It was never questioned. There was no objection put up against it that we should alter that basis in the '81 Act as the resumption price. We did not alter it. It is there when land is being acquired, and the tenant purchaser is entering for his period in accordance with the basis in the '81 Act as to the resumption price. You, therefore, have something approximating closely to market value, and in addition you have to buy the landlord's interest. That is calculated on the basis of so many years' purchase of the rent or upon such and such a reduction. That makes that land extremely dear, and that one practical consideration makes it extremely difficult to deal with, or acquire, large areas of tenanted land. It may be when the needs of land purchase become more pressing, as the Act develops, that a considerable body of opinion, whether it be majority opinion or minority, will develop in the direction of facing this question again. But if it faces it there would be very serious issues raised which will shake security.
May I ask a question? Is it the fact that where land at present held from the Land Commission at a rental is offered to the Land Commission, the tenant occupier is offered a price subject to the redemption of his debt to the State?
That is another question which I will come to when I am dealing with land subject to an annuity.
The land in the future will be all subject to an annuity when your Land Act operates.
I am dealing with land held at present by tenants who have not purchased under the Act. We want to be careful not to call purchased land land which is subject to an annuity.
On the appointed day they would be all subject to an annuity.
At 1.45 p.m., notice having been taken that a quorum was not present, the Ceann Comhairle counted the House, and a quorum being present the debate was continued.
Certainly, but we do not name the appointed day in any case where there is a likelihood that we will not acquire the land. The whole question of whether you are to acquire tenanted land or not comes up on the question when you name the appointed day for the tenant. We are not using the expression "tenanted land" in connection with land purchased. It is not tenanted land but land held on fee simple subject to a mortgage, the mortgage being the State.
That is the difficulty about tenanted land and it faces the Land Commission in a great many cases. However, with regard to tenanted land, they are able to buy land very reasonably, because in a great many cases tenants holding large areas of land have made up their minds that they might as well offer that land to the Land Commission. They know that times are changing and, to put it crudely, they think it is well to get out now at a decent price. In that way the Land Commission can acquire considerable areas at a fair price. In other places where they acquire it compulsorily at high prices they try to set off one estate against another. If they buy tenanted land as well as untenanted land they pool the price of both, apportion the annuities and so get over the difficulty. Those cases will show the difficulty of acquiring tenanted land on a wholesale scale. With regard to purchased land you have to buy the fee simple from the tenant subject to a mortgage, the mortgage being the advance already made by the State. First you have to redeem the mortgage. That is to say, you have to buy off practically the existing advance because on the average I should say the existing tenant purchasers have not been vested for more than 18 years. Therefore, there is only 18 years' annuity out of 67 paid off, and therefore in redeeming the annuity you have practically to pay off 90 per cent. of the advance from time to time to be made on that land. Another condition is that if you were actually buying the land and not merely giving an exchange you would have to give the tenant something approximating to the resumption price of untenanted land. In the Land Act, 1923, it was decided that we were going to take powers to acquire purchased land compulsorily. It was pointed out that that would be a serious thing to do, that any section in any Land Act which gives the Land Commission power to acquire land compulsorily at the ordinary price of fee simple land, that is, at a price which is about half its market value would, for the purpose of an advance from the bank, reduce the value of such land to half its market value. In other words, we would be certainly doing something which would reduce the value of 70 or 80 per cent. of the land of the country to half its existing value.
That would have very serious reactions. There was then the other question, whether it is a good principle that the State should take to-day what it gave yesterday, and finally it was decided, in view of the fact that it was necessary to acquire some purchased land especially in the congested districts, that what should be done was to give power to the Land Commission to take land compulsorily, and on the other hand to give equally suitable and not less valuable land elsewhere to the tenant purchaser. We buy some land offered voluntarily at a fairly reasonable price.
If you take into account, in regard to purchased land, tenanted land and untenanted land the considerations that apply to price attached to each of these various classes of land and couple with that the position you have now, that the rate of interest is 4¾ per cent. as against 3¼ per cent. under the 1903 Act and 3½ per cent. under the 1909 Act, you will see the difficulty of rushing land purchase. Land purchase is a very difficult job and it would be a very great mistake to rush it. It is a question that requires the most careful consideration if we are not going to have a state of affairs here over the long period of 67 years by which tenant purchasers would be endeavouring to pay uneconomic annuities.
The question of price alone is one that cannot be rushed. It is one that must be dealt with with extreme care and in a variety of ways if we are to get results that are economic. When people accuse the Land Commission of having estates in their hands which they have not divided and which they set for, say, eleven months, they ought to remember that in a great many cases they do that because they hope to get cheaper land in the neighbourhood to pool the prices and therefore pool the annuities. There are considerations of that kind to be taken into account. Another thing that affects the rate at which land can be divided is that when the inspectors go to divide land they may find that they can make a fairly reasonable scheme, say, if they just divide a particular estate that they had at the moment, but that if they could get another piece of land which was near the estate and which was likely to come on the market in a short time—if they could get that land by agreement or that the Land Commission acquired it compulsorily—they might feel that in the division of an estate placed like that they could do a lot better.
A great many considerations enter into the question of what an economic holding is. An economic holding depends on rent, area and a great number of other factors—on the proximity of the holding to the house and farm of the man who is working it. You can divide untenanted land among a number of congests who live two, three, four or five miles away. You can make their holdings economic in the sense of bringing them up to £15 each or so, but still you leave them in an unsatisfactory position. In the case of a man who has six, eight or ten acres of land two miles away from his home, you have to remember that that land has to be tilled, manure must be carted to it, and stock must be driven to it and back from it, and the result is that you leave him in a most unsatisfactory position. Every farmer knows that. The Land Commission are constantly up against that problem. The inspectors who know all about practical farming know that a farmer finding himself in that position and who gets from the Land Commission a share of an estate that is divided is still left in an unsatisfactory position. The inspector says to himself that he knows he can divide the estate among a certain number of holdings, but still that he will not make them economic and personally he will not feel satisfied with what he is doing. He knows that he is just doing something which will please for the moment, because people are always pleased to get something extra for very little. It would be better for them, he says, and I would be doing better work from the point of view of the tenant purchasers if they waited until some places which would provide more land came into the market in, say, two or three months' time.
Of course, the Land Commission can act on the principle that the moment they get an estate they can divide it regardless of surrounding circumstances, or they can deal with the question as they should deal with it, in a proper and efficient manner, by realising that the decision to put a tenant into possession of a holding is not one to be viewed in the light of this year or next year or the next three or four years, but rather in the light that you are putting him into the possession of a holding that is economic in the full sense of the word, and a holding in which he will have no difficulty in meeting his liabilities during the following 67 years in which he will have to pay his annuities. Deputies should remember that when complaining about Land Commission delays. I want to say that I am not making any excuse whatever for the Land Commission delays in preparing agreements to purchase, and I am not making any excuse for the reason that I mentioned before.
The preparation of agreements to purchase must be carried out with the greatest care. If not, the vesting order will be wrong, and the vesting order is evidence, and is taken as evidence, of every particular in connection with the holding: area, annuity, reservations, rights of way and so on. It is the system which was adopted first under the Local Registration of Title Act which contemplated that every charge on land should be registered immediately under that Act. That saved farmers and land owners generally thousands and thousands of pounds and has saved them even more than that, if you consider that time is money also. We all know that the law's delays as regards making title and other matters has been the subject of much literature of one kind or another. All these delays were swept away by the Local Registration of Title Act because all such claims must now be on a folio, and if a claim is not on that folio it does not exist. If a man wants to sell his land he knows that his folio will show whether there is any claim on it or not. If there is no claim on the folio then no claim exists. If a man has a dispute as to whether a right of way on his land has been encroached upon by someone, by even half a foot, he comes in with his folio with the map attached, a map that is accurate to an inch. He hands the map to the judge's assessor and no witnesses are necessary. The map proves itself to the judge's assessor, and it shows whether or not the right of way has been encroached upon. The same applies to bogland. That is why it is so necessary to prepare with great care these agreements to purchase.
The regulations as regards vesting have been altered now for the first time as compared with the 1903 Act. An alteration has been made to the effect that the inspector, instead of preparing and mapping out a holding and instead of preparing agreements to purchase, prepares a single agreement known as a temporary convenience agreement which is registered. There is no checking. Everything is approximate in that temporary convenience agreement. It is taken straight away to the estate. Tenants and the tenant purchasers sign this temporary agreement and are put into possession immediately under it. After that the regular agreement is prepared with great care and with the leisure that such a thing requires. All that means that Irish land purchase will be expedited by that means and that it will proceed at least three times as quickly as heretofore. That is in operation at present.
Another point raised by some one on the Labour Benches, I forget by whom at the moment, was the question of the rights of labourers under the Act. It was raised in particular in connection with the dismissal of labourers on estates that are bought by the Land Commission. I mention it especially because I know of cases where that trouble occurs very often. The Land Commission inspects some of this land; that is the first the owner hears of it. The owner then writes to the Land Commission protesting. They offer a price; he refuses. The next thing is he calls in the labourers and hands them notice, and he says to them: "I am very sorry; our relations have always been the best for the last twenty years, but here the Land Commission comes along, and I must fire you out." That happened in a great many cases. Of course the idea is to open up every sort of device to prevent the Land Commission going ahead, and he thinks it is useful to get the labourers to his side; they have their notice to quit, and he says: "It is the Land Commission. You cannot blame me, the land is being acquired, and it will be in their hands in a week or a fortnight." They cannot blame the owners, and they join in the general chorus, and everything is done to obstruct the Land Commission in the acquisition of the land. The owner probably lodges notice, which means that the Land Commission cannot take up the land for three months more, and he plays his cards in such a way that he can hold up the land for a year. Deputies should remember that. I say that publicly because I have received a great many letters on the point. People are under a misapprehension when land is vested in the Land Commission. Everybody connected with the estate will know it at once, and then the owners of the land call their labourers together and tell them they must dispense with their services, as the Land Commission has acquired the land. It would be well worth while knowing whether, in fact, the Land Commission had acquired the land or not. I get representative people saying: "This is a sad state of affairs. Those people are out of employment." I cannot interfere, but I point out that nothing that the Land Commission does makes it necessary for the owner to dispense with his labourers—nothing whatever.
Of course at the time the land is acquired, that is for a week or so, arrangements have to be made, transition arrangements, and they will possibly interfere with the routine as it existed up to that time, and it may mean dispensing, for a short time, with a man or two. I am not referring so much to that. What I am referring to is this particular system which certain owners of land adopt in order to fight the Land Commission on the question of the acquisition of land. That is so from the moment the inspector inspects the land, and there is agitation of one kind or another. Perhaps the owner makes the case that it is a stud farm. The Press is worked up on that stunt, and very often they also call in the labourers and tell them that the Land Commission requires this land and they must be dismissed. The owner says: "The Land Commission wants my land and I must dispense with you." The Land Commission cannot deal with a question of that kind. They cannot make any arrangements with the labourers until they acquire the land. After they have acquired the land the regular labourers can be easily dealt with, and they are easily dealt with by the Land Commission after they acquire the land, and these probably find no difficulty in getting grazing rights for a cow or a horse which they formerly enjoyed. I think these are all the points that have been raised.
Could the Minister deal with the position of land which is expected to be acquired and forestalled by sales made presumably with the expectation that possession will give security, possession being nine points of the law? That seems to me to cause as much difficulty as any other—the feeling that the prospects of the congests or labourers or others are being forestalled by a sale before the land is acquired by the Land Commission. The large holders are extending their holdings by this method, and a good deal of agitation arises as a consequence amongst those who thought they were going to get a division of this land.
Mr. HOGAN
There is some difficulty there, but I do not think it is as widespread as the Deputy suggests. You hear of a case very often where some parties in the neighbourhood think there is going to be a sale. I have been told of such cases where people say the land is going to be sold, but the sale does not take place. There is the possibility of it, and that gives rise to agitation and there is a lot of noise because people think the place is going to be sold, but I do not think there are many sales for the direct purpose of evading the Act. In any event, what can be done? You have powers under the Act. One thing can be done. You have powers to acquire land compulsorily at a certain price. These powers can be exercised by the Land Commission rigorously and they can be exercised even though the purchaser is in. There will be a certain practical difficulty of course. The land might be divided into three or four or five holdings of say fifty acres, and it is not quite as easy, I agree, to go on to a holding of fifty acres and acquire it as it would be to acquire the original holding of 450 acres. There is that practical difficulty, and the only way I see out of that particular difficulty is for the Land Commission to enforce strictly its rights regardless of who is in whenever they think there has been a sale for the purpose of defeating the Act. It is right that they should enforce their powers strictly in such a case. Where there have been such sales we have insisted on purchasing at a smaller figure than had been given.
Would the Minister say that whenever there is an appearance, or satisfactory proof of an evasion, that the rights of the Land Commission will be enforced?
Mr. HOGAN
Well, it would be a very difficult thing. There are two sides to the question. You must make it quite clear that the citizen has rights to sell his property, that is number one. It must be established as a matter of law and practice that the citizen has a right to sell his property, and that is complicated when dealing with a grievance that may arise as the result of that particular right and it is made more complicated by the fact of agitation, which is often developed against a sale which is perfectly genuine and with which the Land Commission would in fact not interfere. I want to make it quite clear that a property owner has a right to sell his land. I want to say that the Land Commission will exercise its right to purchase land regardless whether it is A.B. owns it to-day instead of C.D. a week ago, but that is all the distance we can go on that point. It is another of those practical difficulties of land purchase that must be solved, not so much by legislation as by the good sense of the officials administering the Act and by the efficiency with which they do their work.
According to the Minister, there are 1,240,000 acres of untenanted land.
Mr. HOGAN
Acquired land.
What is the intention of the Land Commission with regard to ranches of 400 and 500 acres in the possession of one individual? Will they be taken over and distributed?
Mr. HOGAN
I have dealt with that question fully.
The Minister said on a previous occasion that they had no power to take these lands, except the tenants agreed to hand the lands over, and then they would have to purchase the tenants' and the landlords' interests.
Mr. HOGAN
I have nothing to add. What does the Deputy want me to say?
I want the Minister to act rightly in the interest of the people and take over these lands and not be trying to throw dust in the eyes of the people, as he has been doing.
The Deputy should not make statements like that.
I think I am in order. The Minister has asked me a question and I think I have a right to reply.
Mr. HOGAN
Now that the Deputy has got out the last sentence, I think he is quite satisfied.
I did not mean it as an insult to the Minister. There are thousands of acres in the hands of a few people, and the least we can expect from our own Government is that these lands will be taken over. A large part of this land is in the hands of the descendants of Cromwell's settlers and should be taken over and given to the ancestors of those to whom it formerly belonged.
I wish we had all the Cromwells out of Ireland.
I should like to support this motion of Deputy Roddy's, although I have different objects in view in doing so. For a long period of years politicians of every party in Ireland have got themselves into power on the old cry of "the land for the people." We are just coming down to hard facts now, because the Minister for Agriculture has stated that there is not enough land to go round. It is a good thing that we have got as far as that. At all events, as a consequence of the unequal division of the land in this country, it is regrettable to find a few people owning and controlling almost the whole of the land to the detriment of the State. We have evidence of the widespread evils caused by the unequal distribution of the land. We have a ruined land industry and all that that involves, a terribly congested labour market, a limited number of manufacturing industries, a dearth of employment and a vast mass of unemployed people in the towns and cities.
Mr. HOGAN
I might point out to the Deputy that out of 350,000 holdings in the country there are only 9,000 over 150 acres.
Mr. DOYLE
That is what I want to come to.
Mr. HOGAN
That is the exact opposite to what the Deputy has been saying.
Mr. DOYLE
But the fact is that at the moment we have only about 160 people to the square mile in this country, while in a small country like Belgium they have about 640 to the square mile.
Mr. HOGAN
Largely cities.
Mr. DOYLE
More than two-thirds of the people are on the land.
Mr. HOGAN
No.
Mr. DOYLE
Why should our people be driven out of the open country into the cities and towns? It is due to the neglect of the land. The land to-day is given over to bullocks and that is not an economic proposition. What sum of money are we sending out of this country for our daily supply of bread and other foodstuffs, most of which could be produced by our own people instead of getting other countries to produce them for us? Butter, eggs, bacon and other foodstuffs could be produced here, and that would save us from exporting millions of money for those necessaries of life. We are relying upon foreign countries for our supplies of bread and other foodstuffs. That has not been contradicted, and I am sure the Farmers' Party will agree with that statement. What would happen in the morning if a war broke out in Europe, which is not impossible? We talk about a defence force for Ireland, while the real defence is food for the people. If a war broke out "corners" would be established in foodstuffs, supplies would be held up, and you would have a revolution. What would there be to stop that? A defence force! It would be an impossibility with the hungry people. Would there be anything to prevent secret service agents, by means of a clever financial arrangement, depriving us of our food supplies? There would be nothing to prevent it. Therefore I say we should create as many economic holdings as we possibly can in the country. By doing that we would be doing something towards the uplifting of our people economically, physically and morally. In the County Carlow there are about 2,000 acres of untenanted land, as the Minister told me some time ago in reply to a question. Some time since the Minister asked me to put him some question in connection with three ranches held by Land Committees.
I would ask him now what is the difference between the price that the committee offered for the lands of Kellistown and that which the Land Commission were prepared to give; and also what is the difference in price between the Land Commission and the Land Committees in reference to Duckett's Grove and Moyne. These lands contain a couple of thousand acres. The guarantors for these lands are in rather an awkward position. The matter is serious, because some of them are not now in a position in which they could be compelled to stand to their agreement, with the result that a few people will have to foot the whole bill. There are a number of uneconomic holders in these districts who want to get in on the land, but they do not like to place the guarantors in an awkward position on account of the patriotism they displayed. The acquisition of land was one of the objects of the movement at that particular time. Those people did not want any of the land for themselves, but became guarantors in order to acquire the land for the people. I want to know what is the present position in connection with these holdings, between the Land Commission and the Land Committees or guarantors, as the case may be. The Minister said that he was going to introduce legislation in connection with this matter, and I ask that it be introduced as early as possible, because there are a number of these cases all over the Saorstát. I also urge that the Kilcomney estate, near Bagnalstown, which is now owned by the Land Bank, should be dealt with, so as to relieve the uneconomic holders, and make them an asset to the nation.
When putting people on the land I would like if the Minister would get some guarantee that they would cultivate a certain percentage, say ten, twelve, or fourteen per cent., so that it would not go back to grass, as otherwise there would be no difference between one big grazier and several small ones. I urge the Minister to have the division of the land completed at as early a date as possible.
Mr. COSGRAVE
I would like if the Minister will state if the Land Commission will take any steps in cases where graziers have recently got tenancies for the purpose of evading the Act of 1923.
That is a very important point, as a considerable number of people, in trying to anticipate the operation of the Act, broke up their land, and made tenancies of 400 or 500 acres. These people had the land on the eleven months' system, and when the Act came into operation permanent divisions were made in order to evade it, and allow those who had some of the land to retain possession of it. A good many tenancies of that kind have been made. The cases to which Deputy Doyle referred arose in the days of the boom, when certain men who wanted to be good fellows put their names down when any price was being paid for land. Up to £75 and £80 per acre was paid for such land.
Many Deputies have taken part in the discussion with regard to the distribution of untenanted land. My suggestion to the Minister for Agriculture is that the Land Commission should retain some of that land for the education of farmers. The Land Commission has land in its possession in each county and I suggest that it should retain sufficient for a medium sized model farm at which instruction would be given to farmers in the surrounding districts. Instructors and demonstrators have been going through the country for the past few years giving good advice, but that advice, with some exceptions, is not acted on by the people. I was present at one lecture advertised on the rotation and manuring of crops. There were only about ten people present. In a house in the neighbourhood there were a considerable number of farmers playing cards, and when they were asked to attend the lecture they refused, saying that they did not believe in lectures. They expressed the view that the instructors were paid to talk and lecture and that if they had to practise what they preached they would not be able to make farming pay. In my opinion about 50 acres should be retained for a medium sized farm in each county in the Saorstát, and an official should be put on that farm and told that he would have to work it and live on it. I was at Athenry model farm once or twice and I believe that farm work is done very well there. I have been told that it was a demonstration farm and that it did not pay.
Experiments are different to demonstrations.
Still, the people are asked to follow the advice of the instructor. In my opinion the Land Commission is going and will go as fast as it believes is for the benefit and prosperity of the country. I believe there is no necessity to push them as some people wish to push them.
I was glad to hear Deputies' views on the division of land especially with regard to Connemara. In a great many cases in Connemara I believe that the Minister and the Land Commission cannot do all that is needed, but in many cases the tenants on these holdings are living under terrible conditions. Some of them have plots for potatoes which are only about 30 yards square. Deputy Mulcahy and Deputy Baxter have seen these plots. On the other hand there are large sheep ranches let on the 11 months system and on some of these ranches there are up to 1,000 sheep. I would like to know from the Minister what his intentions are as regards the provision of lands for people living on the coast. As regards co-operative farming societies that bought land in 1919 and 1920, that land is now in the hands of the Land Commission and the purchasers have paid about one-fourth of the purchase price. They have been paying at the rate of 6¼ per cent., and up to the present they have not got the benefit of the Land Act. I would like to know when they will get the benefit of the Act or when ranches held in common will be distributed.
Mr. HOGAN
As to the points raised by Deputies Doyle and Broderick dealing with Land Bank or Committee cases, Deputy Doyle dealt with probably a unique case where a committee gave £80 or £90 an acre and borrowed the money from the Bank. The Land Commission thinks that land was worth about £30 an acre. It is extremely good land. There is something like £50 in the difference in prices. It is practically the same question as Deputy Broderick raised. I have made a proposition in detail to the Minister for Finance to deal with these cases, and I will not enlarge on the proposition now. Roughly speaking, the proposition is that we will have to find the difference between the fair price and the price at which the lands were purchased. There is no going back on the original purchase. The money was raised and the Bank has to be paid off. The only way out is to find something to fill the gap between the price that was paid and the fair price. I can introduce a Bill when I have got a decision.
Will the Minister confine the payment of the bonus to the particular areas in which these cases occurred?
Mr. HOGAN
Land Bank and Committee cases—certain well-known specific cases.
Will you confine it to the area of the county in which they are in or will you treat it by way of taxation on the general community?
Mr. HOGAN
No. My proposal would be to introduce legislation for the purpose of enabling the Treasury to meet that particular bill. It is not a very big one, though it is considerable enough. There is no question of taxing the county for it. That is only one little detail of the proposals. With regard to the other point—the point raised by Deputy Cosgrave and also by Deputy Gorey—the question of a tenancy being created since the passing of the Act, there is a section in the Act— I have not the Act by me at the moment—which points out that no tenancy created after the passing of the Act—I forget the exact date that is mentioned—is valid for the purpose of the Act.
Or made immediately before it?
Mr. HOGAN
I forget the date— whether the provision was for a month before the passing of the Act or not. But I know that it is comprehensive enough to include any tenancy likely to be in contemplation at the time of the passing of the Act or any tenancies which have been created since the passing of the Act. No owner is in a position to create a tenancy since the passing of the Act. Deputy Hennigan raised the old point about demonstration farms, and Deputy Gorey emphasised the point that it was demonstration farms that were referred to and not experimental farms. What is the position as Deputy Hennigan set it out? You may have ten people from a parish in a county turning up to a lecture. In that same county you are to have a 50-acre farm which is not to be an experimental farm but a demonstration farm, and by a demonstration farm is to be understood a farm worked on ordinary commercial lines. Of that 50-acre farm, there are to be 10 acres devoted to tillage, 15 acres to meadow and 25 acres to grazing. It is to be a good farm, worked on commercial lines. Ten acres tillage is rather high for a 50-acre holding; it represents one-fifth of the holding. The tillage is to be well done. We are to have really good mangolds and turnips. The land is to be properly tilled, manured and fertilised and the drills are to be well opened. The oats are to be well sown and there is to be clean land. And that farm is to be run on commercial lines. We are to do none of the foolish things that we do in Athenry. We are not to experiment in three or four varieties of mangolds and lose money on the experiment.
You are to take no risks.
Mr. HOGAN
We are to take no risks. It is to be a commercial and not an experimental farm. This farm of 50 acres, run on ordinary commercial lines, is to be well fenced. The whole county will turn up in springtime to see the mangolds being put in and the manure being put out, or the drills being made, or they will turn up in summer to see how they are cutting the hay, or they will turn up in autumn to see how we are harvesting——
They will turn up to see your nice piggeries.
Mr. HOGAN
The piggeries will be of the same sort as the piggeries on any good farm, run on commercial lines.
They will turn up to see your nice herd of dairy cattle.
Mr. HOGAN
No, they will not.
Does the Minister suggest that a good farm in a district is not of any value to the district?
Mr. HOGAN
Deputy Johnson has got to the point. A good farmer is of real value to the district. A good farmer in a parish can do more than the Department of Agriculture within that parish, but he will only touch that parish, and the State would want to have 10 or 11 farms of that sort in a county, run at tremendous cost. And for nothing. I do really doubt whether that would be as useful as efficient instructors who will, after all, be able to get in touch with good farmers, people who are capable of appreciating and of receiving instruction, and whose farms will become demonstration farms. Not a single one of the gentlemen playing cards on that occasion would turn up to look at a demonstration farm run by the State. And even if they did, what would they say? They would say: "It is easy for them to have a good farm when they have the State behind them. We do not believe the accounts are right."
The Minister says that these farms will be run at great expense. If they were run on commercial lines, would not there be a profit left after running them?
Mr. HOGAN
I do not believe that a State farm can pay under any circumstances. Farming is largely a question of small profits and high efficiency. If you have to pay an official at the head of the farm a salary, if you have to pay a dairymaid instead of having the services of the farmer's wife, if you have to pay everybody——
Could not the county instructor be sent there?
Mr. HOGAN
If you have to pay a superintendent, and if you have to pay all the others the salaries that you pay first-class technical men and women, the profits will soon disappear. Then you have the question of hours and pensions and general regulations. I make no secret of it. Farming cannot be successfully done by the State for one hundred and one reasons, and no State, so far as I know, that has ever considered the question, has ever attempted it. The real business of the State is in the direction of experimental farming, and the day an experimental farm pays it should be closed. It is not conducting experiments. No experimental farm is carrying out experiments which are worth anything if it does not make nine failures for every successful experiment.
Do not confound experimental farms with the class of farms that we are talking about.
Níl agam le rádh acht cupla fochal ar an gceist seo mar tá gach Teachta annso, beagnach, ar aon intinn liom. I desire to say that I am very pleased with the unanimity with which my motion has been received on all sides of the House. I made it perfectly clear, in my opening remarks, that the object I had in view was to get an assurance from the Minister that the division and distribution of these lands would be expedited. The Minister accepted my motion and, at the same time, intimated that a change in method was contemplated, whereby 200,000 or 250,000 acres would be divided next year, instead of 40,000 or 45,000 acres, divided under the old arrangement. This change will probably have the effect of bringing about the result I desire. At all events it is something in the nature of an experiment, and naturally I must withhold an opinion on its merits until I have some opportunity of gaining an experience of how it will be worked. The only difficulty I foresee is that trouble may arise because of the fact that temporary possession does not necessarily mean that the occupant will eventually become the legal owner. I would suggest to the Minister that great care should be exercised to see that when a tenant is given temporary possession, the Land Commission should be as sure, as it is possible to be, that there is no possibility that he will be removed subsequently from the holding. There were many points raised in the debate that were outside the scope of my motion altogether. Consequently it is not my business, as mover of the motion, to deal with any of these points. The Minister has replied to these criticisms, and I feel that I can really overlook them.
There was one matter I wanted to draw the Minister's attention to in particular. I made special reference to this matter in speaking to my motion. That is the question of the congestion in the West. In the days of the British regime it was recognised that this was a special problem and the British authorities constituted a special Board to deal with it. I feel on account of the peculiar condition of affairs that exists particularly in the congested districts, it will be absolutely necessary for the Government to take some special measures to deal with this particular problem. I do not think the Minister or the Government can contemplate, with equanimity, the prospect of voting away large sums of money every year for the purpose of relieving distress and unemployment in these areas. I think if the problem is to be tackled at all, the first thing that has got to be done is to establish some kind of special machinery for dealing with it. I feel myself that possibly the functions of Government, at the moment, in these congested are as might very well be co-ordinated under some central control—I mean education, industries, agriculture, fisheries and so on—and by that means you would probably be able, eventually, to grapple successfully with the problem. I think that is a matter that deserves special attention. I do not think any time should be lost in dealing with it because even after all the available land, tenanted or untenanted, has been dealt with the economic problem will still remain. Deputy Wilson—I am sorry he is not here—seems to feel aggrieved because the Minister met this motion in the way he did. I think Deputy Wilson or any other Deputy could have introduced a motion long since and probably the Minister would meet him in the same way as he met me in regard to this motion.
Would I be allowed to ask a question before the debate concludes?
The debate has concluded, but the Deputy may ask a question.
This debate has gone on so long that a very large number of questions were asked, and I hope I am not introducing a question that the Minister has answered already. There were a few questions to which I referred in my original statement. I mentioned fee farm grantees, who come under Section 38. I want to know from the Minister if he can give me any information, with regard to the number of cases that have been heard and if the redemption value of the fee farm grant was fixed on a purely arithmetical system or is the value of the land taken into account in fixing it? That is the first question.
Mr. HOGAN
The answer is—is the land security for the rent? That is the test.
If the land is not security for the rent, will the rent be reduced?
Mr. HOGAN
Yes.
That only applies in that particular direction, but if the land is more than security for the rent the value of the land will not count.
Mr. HOGAN
Oh, no.
resumed the Chair.
The other case to which I was referring is the case with regard to reserved holdings where the purchase money exceeds the £3,000 limit. Will the Minister say what is his policy with regard to such holdings or has he any definite policy? Is the method by which the land is farmed taken into account? Owing to the uncertainty which is caused in many cases by the delay in allowing the owner to purchase, what is the Minister's policy in regard to that particular class? The third question is in regard to what is known as emergency men in the country. I know the Minister can answer me by saying: "Who will tell me whether a man is an emergency man or not? He holds on the same tenure as the ordinary farmer." The fact remains, however, that there is such a class who are definitely known to be emergency men and who have existed for years on sufferance, who never could become useful members of the social community. In many cases there are people who were evicted from the land in the possession of these emergency men. I would suggest that the Land Commission, having authority to take over any land for the purposes of division, should select such places and should dispossess such men, of course, after granting compensation.
Mr. HOGAN
Does the Deputy expect me to make a fourth speech after the debate is concluded?
Will the Minister answer that question? It has never been touched upon before.
If the Minister thinks this point has never been touched upon before, it will be interesting, and I would like to hear him, even at this hour, and under these peculiar circumstances.
Mr. HOGAN
I answered the first question. In regard to the second question concerning farms of a £3,000 limit, the Land Commission have power to make larger advances provided the owner puts up a certain amount of the purchase money, and they will certainly take into consideration how he has farmed his land. In regard to the third question, we are all emergency men in a sense, if we go back far enough. It is a question of how long.
If the farmer puts up the balance over £3,000 in cash, will the balance be advanced by the Land Commission?
Mr. HOGAN
Yes.
In all cases?
Mr. HOGAN
Oh, not in all cases. It depends on the circumstances. How could I give an undertaking that in all cases they would exceed the limit in the Act?