Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 20 May 1943

Vol. 90 No. 4

Committee on Finance. - Vote 52—Lands (Resumed).

During this period, when agricultural countries generally throughout the world are deeply concerned in the production of food, and while some of our neighbouring countries are actively considering how best to organise the distribution and ownership of the land, so that it can be used in the most economic and efficient manner in the best interests of the community, I suggest that we might pause and ask ourselves whether the method we have adopted is the best solution to the problem of uneconomic holdings.

I have asked the question, on more than one occasion on this Vote in the past, whether the unit created by the Land Commission in the distribution of large estates here to allottees is an economic unit in present circumstances. I have expressed the view that it is not, but that opinion has been challenged from the Government Benches on more than one occasion. In view of recent events, and with the limited knowledge I have gained of what has happened in other countries, and of the opinions expressed by agricultural experts there regarding the whole future of agriculture, I feel that our whole method of land distribution is wrong.

In Great Britain, there is quite a big volume of opinion that there is no future for the smallholder. In that country, men who possess 100 acres are looked upon as smallholders. The experts feel that the smallholder cannot exist in a post-war economy there, except on a basis of collective organisation. I think there is some truth in that. With the enormous development that has taken place in British agriculture, and the amount of attention that has been devoted to it in the way of organisation and technical advice in regard to the details of production, we know that they have got extraordinary results from their agricultural productive capacity and that they have expanded their production enormously since the inception of the war.

The Taoiseach expressed his views at Limerick in opening his election campaign, and the Minister for Finance, in his Budget speech recently, made reference to the value of the British market, but if we are to preserve that market so that it will be available to this country in the future, we must ensure that our people are put in a position to compete with British farmers during the post-war period. To a large extent, that efficiency will depend upon the sort of organisation and the method adopted to harness our people to the work of production. With the modern methods and the high degree of mechanisation that British agriculture has attained, we have no room here for the sort of unit that has been adopted generally by the Department of Lands. This House should face up to that situation. I do not think the Land Commission has faced up to it, or that they realise that the problem is a real one, which may be creating a slum problem in some districts, so far as land is concerned.

The mentality and characteristics of our people are such—they are very individualistic—that I do not think you can easily adapt them to the collective idea. I do not propose to advocate the collective idea, but there is in the Land Commission a great opportunity to try out the possibility of co-operative farming. It is even late in the day to try it: it should have been tried long ago. We know the results which have been achieved in other countries in that respect. There are ideal conditions here for the operation of a modern co-operative system. In present circumstances, when we are prepared to spend large sums of money on individual families, in migrating them from the West of Ireland to some of the best land in County Meath and North Kildare, there is no earthly reason why a system of co-operation should not be tried out when a large estate is being divided into a number of small holdings. Why should we divide that estate into small individual units which, from the point of view of modern agriculture, are absolutely uneconomic?

I suggest that the estate as a whole should be organised into one productive unit, at the same time maintaining the individual family on each portion. A committee of control could be evolved without difficulty, to organise production, and could be supplied with the necessary modern machinery, plant and equipment to carry out a modern system of agriculture on the different units. That would provide a great opportunity to carry out a series of experiments, to see how far we could group large numbers of uneconomic holdings throughout the country. If an experiment can be made a success on such an estate, there is no reason why we could not go right through the country into counties where there are small holdings, group them together and organise them for co-operative effort.

We will have to face the situation after the war when there will be competition from people who are highly organised and who have reached a high standard of production. Our people are not equipped and organised in the same fashion. If they are not in a position to command the same means of production, then we will simply fade out of the picture and that will be the end of it. There is no use in talking about the value of the British market to this country if our methods, equipment and technique are not equal to theirs. We cannot expect our people to strive against a handicap of that sort.

No effort is being made to try that out now when the opportunity offers under the system being operated now by the Land Commission. I have adverted to this on other Votes and I thought that at least some examination would be given to this matter. If the experiment had been tried two or three years ago, we would be in a grand position, if it were a success, to organise our people generally on that basis in the post-war period. Let us hope it is not too late. But when we read about other countries tackling this problem of distribution, ownership, organisation, collective farming and all the other methods of putting people in a position where the most efficient and most economic method can be adopted, I feel that we have made no effort whatever to tackle that sort of organisation. We are bound to meet that post-war and we have not got plans to do anything about it.

I think we want to be extremely careful, too, in picking the best material. Many people do not appreciate that in Great Britain to-day farmers are classified into three categories—A, B, and C. Any man who does not reach the C class goes out. Mind you, when we talk of security of tenure we appear to overlook the fact that the people we are competing against are insisting on efficiency or "get-out", one or the other. If we do not insist on some standard of efficiency, we can forget that market to which the Taoiseach and the Minister for Finance have been paying pious tributes. It may be all right to say that the most important and most essential things are right of ownership and security of tenure, but we cannot overlook what is happening around us in other countries, and the competition which will be set for us in a difficult post-war period. In that respect, so far as the personnel for settling on the land is concerned, in my opinion the Land Commission should be extremely careful about picking men with knowledge, experience, ability and energy to work the land in the best interest of the community.

Other Deputies yesterday referred to the problem of settling migrants in Meath, Westmeath and North Kildare and, as representing North Kildare, I must express my view on that. I feel it is unfair to disregard the just claims of local applicants. I do not want to minimise the problem in any way. The congestion in the West has got to be tackled and eased to some extent. That can only be done by bringing them on to the lands where you have a sparse and thin population, but in doing that you cannot overlook the fact that the local people have at least a just claim to equal treatment with the people brought up from the West. I do not want to go beyond that, but I want to stress the point that in reason and in justice the local applicants are at least entitled to be considered.

I can quite understand that the activities of the Land Commission have been slowed down owing to the emergency, but there are a few items which I should like to bring to the Minister's attention. One is in connection with Land Commission roads which are made when lands are divided. The Land Commission make the road, but no one seems to pay any attention to it after it is made. There may be eight, ten or twelve small holders living on a particular road. After a few years the road is in a neglected condition. I know roads on which the owners of threshing mills refuse to bring their mills and people delivering groceries refuse to bring their vehicles. The Minister should seriously consider that matter. When the Land Commission make these roads through lands that have been divided, they should come to some agreement with the county council. When these ratepayers, as they are now, get in touch with the county council, the county council say it is not their business; it is a matter for the Land Commission. The Land Commission adopt the attitude that it is the business of the small holders living along a road to maintain it. It is impossible for these people to maintain a road which may be a couple of miles long.

In the majority of cases these roads are very good substantial roads. As I say, there should be some arrangement by which the county council would take them over and maintain them. I know several of these roads made by the Land Commission on various estates in County Dublin. They are very good roads and, if they had been treated the following year with tar, as the ordinary county council roads are treated, they would last for many years. But they are let go into disrepair, pot-holes appear in them, and the job seems to be too big for the county council, too big for the Land Commission and too big for the people who live on them. The people on these roads have to go to Mass on Sundays, the children have to go to school, and they have to travel on these roads which are in a disgraceful condition. All that could be avoided if the Land Commission got into touch with the county council and came to some arrangement with the council to take them over. The matter should receive the attention of the Minister, as it is a very serious and important one.

Another matter I should like to mention is the lands at present in possession of the Land Commission. I certainly should like to see more land divided, but I can understand that the activities of the Land Commission are held up owing to the emergency. I think, however, that lands which are held by the Land Commission should be divided amongst local applicants, because if the Land Commission continue to let out these lands, the individuals who take the lands will get the most they possibly can out of them and rob the lands of their fertility.

They will put in a couple of crops of wheat and the land will not be much good to anyone else. Such an individual will take it and go all out for tillage that year, the next year and perhaps the third year, so that eventually the land is not much good to anyone. If the fertility of that land is to be maintained, it would be far better that it should be divided amongst deserving people. I know several areas round North County Dublin—and I suppose the same applies to other counties—in which the Land Commission have a considerable amount of land which, year after year, they let out. I ask the Minister seriously to consider, when the letting season ends next November, dividing these lands. I agree with Deputy Hughes when he says that where there are deserving applicants who have satisfied the Land Commission that they are in a position to utilise these lands to the fullest extent, they should be given preference —not that I have any objection to people from the West of Ireland getting land, because a number of them may be coming back to lands from which they were driven in years gone by, but where you have local applicants who have proved their worth on small holdings of two, three, four and five acres and who have reared families on them, the Minister would be wise to consider them in connection with the division of these lands when the season ends next November.

I should like to know what the Land Commission is doing at present. I know they have lands on their hands for a number of years, on which houses have been built in some cases, but these are still being retained, let in grass or some other fashion, and not being used for the purpose for which they were originally taken over. Strange to say, it is impossible to get any information as to why these lands are not divided.

There are too many suitable applicants trying to get planted on them, and houses have been built on some of them, but when the Land Commission are asked to do anything, we are told that the staff has been reduced and they can do nothing. It would save time, trouble and work for the Department if they would dispose of the lands they have instead of answering correspondence in connection with them. I have in mind one part of an estate— only one holding—on which a house was built, and which is ready for taking over at any time. There are too many suitable applicants for it, but the Land Commission merely sit down and give no information as to why that holding has not been distributed. They complain that they are short of staff, but I know that hundreds of letters must have been answered by the Land Commission in respect of that land, and yet it remains undistributed. It is all very mysterious, and I should be glad if the Minister could throw some light on why these things are done in such a peculiar way.

With regard to the suggestion made by Deputy Hughes, I think it would be a very good experiment, if it were no more than that, to try the benefits of co-operation. It might prove a success, but in any case it would be worth trying. Money in plenty is voted for the Land Commission and the Department of Agriculture, and these Departments should be striking out in new directions, trying to make discoveries, and if possible to improve standards of production. Our farmers want a lead. We are very far behind, and these two Departments should cooperate, where necessary, in order to enable experiments to be carried out. Individual farmers cannot afford to make experiments, and even if they did try it would be very difficult for individuals to come together and start organising in respect of something which would be more or less an experiment for some time.

As Deputy Hughes pointed out, if the Land Commission, having a compact unit broken up, worked it and it proved a success, it would be much easier to spread the organisation and induce others to follow suit. If farmers see something proving a success, there is no trouble in getting them to come together, as they did with regard to the co-operative dairying business, but they will do so only when they see something proven. These lands which are actually in the possession of the Land Commission would be suitable for experimenting, and one thing I should like to see is the starting of demonstration farms. It is a matter which was raised and discussed here many years ago. It was turned down by the Minister for Agriculture, but there have been many changes since and the need for demonstration farms is no less now——

That is clearly a scheme for consideration by the Minister for Agriculture, as the Deputy suggests.

I know, but I am suggesting that the two Departments co-operate. If the Department of Agriculture decided to have demonstration farms, they could get a loan of these farms which the Land Commission have on their hands from the Land Commission. They could then carry out the experiment.

The experiment is one for Agriculture, not for the Land Commission.

I hope to raise it when the Vote for Agriculture comes up, but I am bringing it to the notice of the Minister now because I want the co-operation of both Departments. If the Minister for Agriculture decided to give it a trial, he would be saved the trouble of buying or hiring land, because it would be easy for the two Departments to make the necessary arrangements and to provide suitable sized farms from amongst those in the hands of the Land Commission. These could be put in the charge of the local instructor, who could put in men——

The Deputy has reverted to the working of such farms.

I am merely bringing it to the notice of the Minister so that, if he were prepared to cooperate, we could recommend that the Minister for Agriculture should take such steps. I believe that the land in the hands of the Land Commission would be the best land on which to try the experiment, and I should like the Minister for Agriculture and the Minister for Lands to give the matter a little consideration.

Like Deputy Hughes, I think the dividing up of farms into small holdings of 25 and 30 acres is not a sound proposition. I saw land divided some years ago. The people there got 40 and 45 acres of very good land, and, although it was very dear, working out at nearly £1 per acre, they made a real success of their holdings for the reason that the land was good and that they got up to 45 acres. I have seen other estates divided into holdings of 35, 30 and, I think, 25 acres and given to landless men who were powerless to do anything effective with it. They had no capital, and, with the cost of the land and the house built on it, they were unable to pay the rent.

I should like the Minister to say whether it is due to financial stringency that the houses built on these allotments are anything but houses built for families. I am inclined to think that we are building down to a price rather than up to a standard because of financial stringency. Deputy Dillon yesterday tried to make little of this matter by insisting that some of us believe that by giving extra money to the consumers, all our economic evils will be solved. I want to tell Deputy Dillon and anybody else who speaks in that fashion that money is not wealth. It is just a measure of wealth. The sooner we make up our minds to become convinced of that and look upon money as a medium of exchange rather than as a dominating factor, the sooner we will get rid of much of the criticism here.

I would say that, where a 400 or 500 acre estate is being divided, there would be nothing wrong in building eight or ten houses on different parts of that estate for occupation by persons interested in agriculture. We could then try an experiment and deal with the 400 or 500 acres on a co-operative basis, while at the same time maintaining the family unit. It is obvious to any thinking person that if you put ten men on allotments of 35 or 40 acres without sufficient financial backing they will find difficulty in working the land. They will have to buy horses and ploughs and other machinery. If that were done on a co-operative basis, there would be a much better chance of success. I should like to hear the Minister's views on the subject of co-operative farming along those lines.

I wish to draw the Minister's attention to a problem I came across in my constituency. It affects a number of small holdings. The people occupying these holdings have been living there for years and the valuation would indicate that the land at one period was good, but in several places it has deteriorated considerably; in fact, it could only be described now as non-arable. When I made inquiries I was surprised to find that the deterioration was due largely to neglect of drainage. I asked the owners why they did not take proceedings against the people responsible for maintaining the waterways, and they told me that the responsible authority in one case was the railway company; that in the past the railway company maintained the waterways along by the railway and, at that period, they were able to cultivate the land; but for a number of years the company had not been quite satisfactory in attending to the drainage, and the people whose lands were affected did not feel equal to going into the courts with a big concern like the railway company.

I suggest that the Land Commission have a duty in this connection. What I have just said applies also to the small farmers who reside on the verges of large estates. On some of those large ranches drainage does not count very much. If a man has a big area of land and only the tail of it is flooded, he does not mind very much; but the small holder who adjoins may have his land flooded through the neglect in the matter of drainage on the part of the large landholder. The people who occupy the smaller holdings dislike going into the courts. I think the Land Commission should pay some attention to the need for keeping the land in a fertile and arable condition. Much of the land that is classed as non-arable by inspectors under the compulsory tillage scheme would be, to my mind, quite arable if some attention could be given to the drainage. In the past it was arable land.

We are not getting the area of land under cultivation that we should get, largely because of the neglect of drainage. This is a matter with which the Department of Lands should immediately concern itself. It may be suggested that this is a matter that should be left over until the report of the Drainage Commission is given effect to. I do not agree with that outlook. I say that there is a lot of field drainage that should be undertaken. In the past, when these estates were in the hands of the landlords, the landlords saw to it that the farms were kept in a fertile condition; that the lands were not allowed to deteriorate. That aspect of the matter should not be neglected by the Land Commission. Many landowners neglect their holdings and fail to carry out proper drainage schemes and their neighbours suffer. One satisfactory feature of the old landlord system was that, where there was a good landlord, he saw to it that the fertility of the soil was maintained. I trust the Minister will give consideration to my suggestions. He should consider more particularly the position of large companies, such as the railway and canal companies, who seem totally to ignore the rights of the people.

I desire to draw the attention of the Minister to the position of the Kenmare tenants in relation to turbary. I am very pleased to know that inspectors have been sent down within the past two or three weeks to divide turbary among practically 3,000 tenants but, unfortunately, activities in the matter of division are more or less finished for the moment, largely on account of the lack of roads and drains. I hold that the construction of roads and drains should have precedence over the actual division of the turbary, and I am given to understand by the inspectors that no further division can be proceeded with until they complete the construction of the roads and drains.

There is one very serious aspect and I am drawing the Minister's attention to it particularly, because I think it could be remedied. The Turf Development Board have acquired about 70 acres of turbary in a highly congested area; they have acquired it for a scheme known as the Barna scheme. They intend eventually to instal a machine for cutting the turf. The 70 acres which they have taken over were originally ear-marked for some 50 tenants who are living in the townlands of Tureencahill and Tureenamult. I suggest it is not yet too late to ask the Turf Development Board to surrender the portion up to what is known as the second drain in the turf development scheme—that portion of the turbary which they have lately acquired. If they do so, they will be accommodating 40 to 50 tenants; otherwise these 40 or 50 tenants would have to travel some eight or nine miles to another bog in order to get their necessary turf supplies. This is a very important matter. I hold that the rights of the tenants should come before the rights of the Turf Development Board. The turbary to which I am referring was not private property; it was ear-marked for those tenants.

I do not want to be critical, or in any way harsh in regard to the Turf Development Board. I quite realise the good work they have done. I suggest that with a little re-adjustment they can move their scheme back to the second drain and still be in a position to have an economic unit from the point of view of working their machine.

There is one very important point that I wish to stress and it is that I would like very much if some effort were made to provide the tenants of the Hartropp, the Cronin Coltsman, and the McCartie estates with turbary. They are surrounded by turbary and it is only a question of devoting a little attention to it to enable them to get it in their district. I particularly refer to the people of Rusheenmore and Rusheenbeg, Arteagallivan and other townlands.

A number of holdings have been offered to the Irish Land Commission in exchange for holdings in other counties and these, if taken over, could be divided amongst the uneconomic holders. I am not stressing any particular case except those that have been offered in congested districts. With a stroke of the pen we could, by taking over one of these holdings, make four or five uneconomic holdings economic. Therefore, I would ask the Minister to pay particular attention to the acquisition of a number of these holdings by giving suitable exchanges in other counties to the tenants from whom they are taking the land.

Listening to this discussion, I was struck forcibly by statements made by Deputies like Deputy Hickey, that a 45-acres holding was hardly sufficient.

I said it was little enough.

Mr. Walsh

It certainly is astounding to anybody from County Mayo to hear of holdings of 45 acres not being sufficient. I wonder if the people in Cork and other counties realise that a man with 45 acres in County Mayo would be considered a rancher?

Some in County Cork also.

Mr. Walsh

There is congestion, and terrible congestion in County Mayo. Deputy Nally yesterday referred to it. It does exist, and only the fringe of the problem has been touched up to the present. The Government started on the right policy in trying to take people out of those areas which may be rightly called rural slums. It is the only solution, because there is not enough land in County Mayo to meet the problem. Even if all the land available were taken over to-morrow by the Land Commission, it would still be insufficient to deal with congestion in the County Mayo. There is a certain amount of land—I might say a considerable amount of land—in the county that could be acquired, and the Land Commission should take steps to acquire it. In my view there should be a limit put to the size of holdings in the County Mayo, but even that will not solve the congestion problem in the county, where you have farms of seven or eight acres in about 20 pieces and where, in some cases, one man's front door is beside another man's back door. There is one particular place in my constituency where, in order to allow his next-door neighbour to use his horse and cart, a man has to allow him to bring his horse and cart through his farm.

These are problems that have to be dealt with in the County Mayo if there is to be any genuine attempt made to settle the land question. There has been good work done, undoubtedly. There has been good work done by the old Congested Districts Board, and there has been good work done by the present Government. The best day's work was when they started bringing people out of the county and giving them a chance of making a living elsewhere. I can assure men like Deputy Hickey that if the congests in Mayo could get 25 acres that he seemed to despise——

I do not.

Mr. Walsh

——in the County of Cork or any other county, there would be a lot of applicants for it. There would be no difficulty in getting people to take it. I am not saying that it is too much or that it is even enough, but the old saying is that you must cut your coat according to your measure. There is only a certain amount of land available and there is a big problem to be dealt with. As far as County Mayo is concerned, the only way to deal with the problem is to take, at the very least, 1,000 of those small land holders out of the county and bring them where there is land and give them some chance of making a living. Those people really have never lived on the land for generations; it is only a lodging for them. We have heard a good deal in different debates in this House of emigration, especially at the present time, to Great Britain, but were it not for the fact that that outlet was available to people in places like County Mayo, for the past three or four generations, I do not know what many of these small land owners would do.

They could not live there.

Mr. Walsh

Of course, they could not possibly live there. I would appeal to the Minister and to the Department of Lands not to hold up this migration scheme, to extend it further and to try to deal with what we know in Mayo as the rundale system. As I have said, there are men with seven or eight and, in some cases, five acres in perhaps 15 or 20 pieces. To a certain extent that has been relieved by the operations of the Land Commission but the places from which migration took place are still there; the neighbouring land owners have merely the grazing rights of them and these townlands have never been rearranged. I think the Ministry should make a serious attempt to rearrange those townlands where opportunity arises for doing so because there are places in the County Mayo of that description that have been hanging fire for nearly 30 years, going back to the old days of the Congested Districts Board. Something should be done about rearranging these townlands. I know there are townlands in which it cannot be done for the simple reason that the people have not yet been taken out of them and there is not enough land available in the neighbourhood, but there are places where there is enough land and where it can be done and should be proceeded with.

I would also appeal to the Minister to extend the grants for reclamation and lime. These are two very good things as far as County Mayo is concerned. Of course, the lime subsidy probably arises on the Vote for Agriculture but I think the grants for reclamation do not exactly come under the Vote for Agriculture. Housing is a thing that needs attention and I find, especially now, due to the rise in the cost of housing material, that the farm grant plus an advance from the Land Commission is not enough in most cases.

There is a Land Commission regulation to the effect that advances cannot exceed ten times the amount of the annuity. I think that at the present time that regulation should be withdrawn because the provision that is being made is not at all sufficient to enable those small land holders to build houses. I have seen the different types of houses shown to those new land holders—numbers 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8. The number two house is, unfortunately, the most common type of house that is being built in the County Mayo. In my opinion it is not at all adequate for large families, and might as well not be built at all. In my opinion, the number five or number eight type of house should be concentrated upon. The Minister will say that the holding would not be able to bear the increased annuity that would have to be imposed as a result of providing the superior type of house. If there is the danger that people would not be able to make the required payments, then, I think, that difficulty should be met by an additional grant from the State. The problems that I have referred to are, so far as land in the County Mayo is concerned, the most pressing at the present time, and I would appeal to the Minister to consider what I have had to say on the Estimate.

The Minister to conclude.

I think that the points raised by Deputy Walsh can be dealt with by me when I come to reply to the points made by some other Deputies. With regard to the houses in general use by the Land Commission, so far as I know the accommodation consists of three bedrooms and one large living-room. It is a type of house that is suited for a family. Deputies familiar with their constituencies will know that the Land Commission house is superior to a very large number of ordinary farm houses.

The Minister says that the accommodation consists of three bedrooms and one large living-room. Does he realise the size of some of those rooms, especially when you take into account that the families consist of ten or 12 persons?

Deputy Harris raised a question about the flooding of certain lands in the County Kildare. If, in addition to the multifarious activities with which the Land Commission is entrusted by statute, it was to have forced upon it the additional duty of looking after the interests of people who have not taken action against the third parties concerned when they feel that their property is being damaged and have failed to seek a remedy in the ordinary way, its position would become very difficult. There are drainage boards and local authorities dealing with drainage questions throughout the country. As Deputies know, we will, in all probability, have a new national drainage authority set up when the Drainage Bill is introduced and, I hope, passed by the Oireachtas in the near future. I do not think that Deputy Harris has very strong grounds for asking us to take upon ourselves the protection of these neighbours of his whose lands are being flooded. As regards the particular case that he mentioned, we had some difficulty in identifying the land. In view, however, of the Deputy's interest in the matter, I have asked for a report from the local inspector.

Some Deputies seem to think that the Land Commission should be able to carry on as in normal times. The war has been on now for a considerable period, and each year on this Estimate I have had to emphasise that the Land Commission is working on a very restricted scale, first of all, because of the reduced staff which we are carrying, and, secondly, because of the fact that a decision was come to early in the war that only actual commitments would be proceeded with. As I shall explain later, it would be quite impossible for us to undertake new commitments at the present time. With regard to the position generally, as I indicated in my opening statement, the situation is much the same as it was last year. In fact, we are in a much worse position this year owing to the petrol shortage. We still have about 340 officers lent to other Departments. In the case of our outdoor staff, we have only about half the number which we normally had, and of that half only about one-fifth are in a position to use their cars. Normally, the Land Commission inspectorate used about 7,500 gallons per month. Now they are using, if they can get it, about 300 odd gallons. Deputies will realise, therefore, that it is absolutely impossible for the inspectors to cover anything like the area of ground which they used to cover in normal times. I would, therefore, ask Deputies to exercise a real discretion in bringing cases to the notice of the Land Commission unless they deal with very serious matters such, for example, as the danger of serious damage by flooding if not attended to. I think that Deputies ought to avoid bringing matters under notice when they know that really very little can be done.

I think, having regard to our circumstances, that we have done fairly well in the past year. As I have stated, over 20,000 acres of land have been divided among 1,400 allottees and about £250,000 have been spent on improvement works. When one considers the exceeding difficulty there is in getting houses built, roads made and fences provided at the present time, I think we have every reason to congratulate ourselves that a fairly decent programme of that character has been carried out in spite of emergency difficulties. At the moment, the Land Commission has about 40,000 acres of arable land in hands—that is to say, in the machine. This is land which, in normal times, the inspectors would be scheming. They are, as far as it is possible, preparing schemes, but the difficulties I have alluded to make their work very tedious, far more than in normal times. However, there is that amount of land in the machine to be dealt with. We have a further 45,000 or 50,000 acres in respect of which proceedings are in progress. In some cases, the price has been agreed upon or fixed by the tribunal. In other cases, the land has been gazetted for acquisition or notice of intention to resume has been served. That means, therefore, that there is a very considerable reservoir of land which, even if we had our normal staff and normal working conditions, would probably take us some years to clear off.

There is, of course, a further large area, running into hundreds of thousands of acres, which has been inspected either for suitability or price or for preliminary consideration. It will be very difficult to deal with that latter category for any considerable time. The position is, as I think I stated in the House last year, that with regard to the acquisition and resales branch of the Department, about two-thirds of the work is of a post-scheme nature. Deputies must remember that the settlement of the people on the land has to follow a recognised procedure which has grown up over a considerable period of time. Legal questions arise and, before the land is finally vested in the tenants, a great deal of work has to be done in the office. Even in normal times, the staff of the acquisition and resale division was not able to keep abreast of the correspondence from allottees all over the country. In the present situation, they are simply swamped and could only deal with a small percentage of these allotted parcels. The House will have some idea of the extent of that problem alone, when I say there are about 45,000 parcels which have been allotted under the 1923 to 1939 Acts, in which this post-scheme work has still to be dealt with. We are trying to do that and, with the reduced staff, it is simply impossible.

Then we have the vesting of holdings. Out of 104,000 holdings coming under the 1923 Act, only 30,000 have been vested, leaving some 74,000 still to be dealt with. A great many of these need to be rearranged, to have new buildings placed upon them and to have roads and fences constructed. When I am asked what the Land Commission is doing, I would like Deputies to find out for themselves the nature of the work which the officers in the acquisition and resale branch and the purchase branch have to carry out. This is tedious detailed work and, in the cases I have mentioned, each individual holding may have special points which have to be cleared up. It is not as in other Departments, where some general formula will cover a multitude of cases and, with the stroke of a pen and a decision at headquarters, everything goes along smoothly. These cases in the purchase branch, and often in the acquisition and resale branch, involve attention to individual holdings. If these individual holdings are not attended to, and if the work of revesting or completing the settlement of the tenant in the proper legal manner, according to the usual procedure of the Land Commission, is not done in the usual way, leaving no leaks or points to be cleared up later, it simply means that you have further correspondence. I would ask Deputies, therefore, to make allowances for the huge amount of work that the commission is trying to carry out under extremely difficult circumstances.

It appears to me that the vesting of the 74,000 holdings is one of the most important problems which remain to be dealt with. In addition we have the problem of congestion in the west of Ireland. Deputies probably know that there are between 40,000 and 50,000 holdings there, which were purchased under the old Congested Districts Board. It was intended that rearrangement of them should take place and that an effort should be made, not alone to provide houses, roads, fences and drains, but by the rearrangement to bring the existing holdings—of a very miserable character, in very many instances—to something more approaching an economic level. As Deputy Walsh has pointed out, there would not be enough land in the country to provide an economic holding for even a percentage of those 40,000 or 50,000 congests. I consider that it is perhaps the most important problem that lies before the Land Commission to complete that work, which is a legacy left over from the previous régime—which, in any case, showed that it had good intentions when it started and which, during its period, accomplished very good work indeed.

It is rather disappointing that we have not been able to make more progress in dealing with the problem of congestion. It is really a form of social service, in my opinion, which is superior to many of the social services which the taxpayers provide. Aid is certainly given by the State in carrying out this policy of resettlement, and in enabling migrants to be transferred from congested areas and have the holdings they left behind them used in rearrangement to increase their neighbours' holdings. But that money is very well spent, if it provides large families with opportunities to people the more fertile lands of the country, which are practically unpopulated, or were so until this scheme started, and also if it gives the people left in the congested areas a somewhat better chance to eke out an existence there. The money seems to me to be very well spent indeed. It is in the nature of capital expenditure, and a considerable amount of it is repaid.

Anything that tends to keep a healthy industrious and intelligent stock on the land, which might otherwise have become a proletariat in some foreign slum—not even an Irish one— is very good business. In these days, when we hear so much talk of social security, I am rather surprised that there could be any doubt that the policy of trying to relieve the very bad congestion in certain districts on the western seaboard should be pursued, and even pursued intensively. If it is true, as some Deputies have suggested, that far more will have to be done after the war and that people will require more security, I fail to see in what way you can give them greater security to build upon, not alone so far as being members of the State is concerned, as individual citizens, but for the building of healthy and happy families, which is also a matter of great importance.

The House knows that, some years ago, an interdepartmental committee was set up by the Government to examine the question of seasonal migration which goes on from many of those congested areas. This committee recommended that the Government should take all practicable steps to concentrate its energies on a policy of land resettlement, with a view to solving the problem of the congested areas. In paragraph 59 of their report the committee state:—

"The area of untenanted land available in the congested districts counties for the relief of congestion has been reduced considerably in the manner described in paragraph 56 since the abolition of the Congested Districts Board and is now definitely insufficient by itself to enable the conditions in the congested districts to be improved to anything like the extent required. It is not possible from the statistics available to state the precise area likely to be available, but it is estimated that it will exceed 100,000 acres. At least 50,000 acres of this total would be required for the enlargement and improvement of the holdings of adjoining uneconomic occupiers, and in order to provide scope for the rearrangement and enlargement of the remaining uneconomic holdings the migration of at least 8,000 families will be necessary."

That will give the House an idea of the extent of the problem. Later on the committee state:—

"The area of untenanted land likely to be available for distribution outside the congested districts counties is estimated at about 600,000 acres and we recommend that not less than one-fourth of this area, in large blocks, be ear-marked for migrants from the congested districts so as to enable migration to be carried out in colonies or large homogeneous groups."

The Government accepted the recommendation in 1938 after the committee had reported, but before we could put the recommendations into operation in the way that we would have wished, the emergency situation arose and our inspectors were transferred to compulsory tillage work, to turf work, and so on. Most of the turf schemes throughout the country are, of course, the result of the work of the Land Commission inspectors. In the same way, as I have explained to the House, the indoor staff of the Land Commission has been very seriously reduced, so that it was impossible to operate the scheme of migration on anything like the scale that the committee suggested, and that I believe the Government would have wished to do.

At the present time we are trying to carry on migration as best we can. There are great difficulties in the way, but I believe that, no matter what Government is here, that problem of bad congestion will have to be tackled by the Department of Lands, and that they will have to continue to pursue it for a period of time until a very substantial number of those families are taken out of the congested areas altogether. Those who have been taken out have proved that the Land Commission inspectors knew what they were doing when they recommended them for transfer under these migration schemes. They have impressed those who have come in contact with them by their industry and capacity, and I have no doubt whatever but that they will be a great success. They have been a success up to the present time, and I have not the slightest doubt that, far from being a failure as has been suggested, even if the scheme were to be stopped at the point that it has now reached, it will be of tremendous national benefit, because I believe that the families of these migrants will spread out. As the House knows, and as was pointed out during the debate, it would, of course, be impossible in a household of 14 children for everyone to get a livelihood on the land which the Land Commission has provided them with. But I have no doubt that a certain number of them will, through their industry, remain in the area, if not on the parental holding, and they may be able to acquire holdings themselves later on, if they are worthy and suitable. So far as the migration scheme is concerned, far from having any apology to offer, or finding it necessary to make any explanations, I am very happy and proud to have been associated with it during my period in the Department of Lands, and I think my predecessor and the Land Commissioners have reason to congratulate themselves on the success which has been achieved.

One of the points we have to keep in mind in connection with this problem of migration is that after the war it will be necessary to provide employment for very large numbers of our people returning to this country from Great Britain, and I do not see any way that is better socially than enabling people to have better homes, enabling them to have better means of living in the congested areas through the improvement works that the Land Commission have been carrying out. Very large sums of money have been spent, and I hope that when normal conditions are resumed far greater sums will be spent. It may very well be that if all these, or even if only a large percentage of them, return immediately the war is over, the Government will find it absolutely necessary to find employment for them in this way. There is scarcely any better way of providing employment in rural areas. Of course, the 40,000 or 50,000 holdings I have referred to are mainly in Galway, Mayo and Donegal. We have not got them in Kerry, and, therefore, we are not able to spend the same amount of money as we spent in the other counties I have mentioned. We have not the problem of re-arrangement and resettlement in the same way. The Land Commission are very restricted in what they can do in Kerry. But we have been trying to concentrate on turbary. I am afraid we have not always been met with the support locally that we would wish. When the surveyors of the Land Commission went down there, far from getting cooperation, they got opposition. Deputies who come from areas where turbary is a burning question will realise the extreme difficulty of getting agreement from the owners of turbary in connection with these schemes. It takes a very long time before a proper survey can be carried out, where there is a large number of tenants involved. If, in addition to the other difficulties that the surveyor and the inspector are faced with, they are to have the hostility of those who, for the time being, are using the turbary, it makes it almost impossible for them to carry out the work in the way that our friends in Kerry would like. Nevertheless, a good deal of money has been spent, and I hope that through the joint operations of the Turf Development Board and the Land Commission more money will be spent on bog development in Kerry. The bog in which Deputy Crowley is interested—Tooreencahill, I think, is the name—is the subject of discussion between the Turf Development Board and the Land Commission.

Deputy Fionan Lynch referred to the Emergency Powers Order which prevents the Land Commission from dealing with fresh applications for admission to purchase benefits under the Acts. Since the closing down on these applications has come about, it appears that landlords have been, more than was the custom, asking tenants to sign grazing agreements, but we are not in a position to deal with applications in the ordinary way, and it did not seem fair to allow the powers to continue and allow tenants to make application knowing that we were not in a position to deal with them. I shall consider carefully the Deputy's suggestion that perhaps applications made to the Land Commission under these sections might be filed away and acknowledged, even though we may not be in a position to deal with them at present. I think that in a good many cases in which these people have written in, they have been informed that note has been taken of the matter and that we may assume that the question will be taken up as soon as the emergency situation is ended. I shall look into the matter specially, however, and see whether we cannot have a regular plan, if there is not a regular system in operation already by which applications of that nature are noted for future consideration.

Deputy Dockrell referred to the case of Mr. Robert Lambert, who has been provided with a holding on the Smith estate at Rathfarnham. He wanted to know if Mr. Lambert has a pension of nearly £300 per annum, and if his wife also has a pension. I understand that he and his wife have pensions. His pension, I am informed, amounts to £67 and his wife's to £52 10s. Of course, the fact that a man has a military service certificate does not mean that he is excluded from eligibility where he would be otherwise eligible in the case of schemes for the division of land. Quite the contrary— in each category of ex-employees, landless men or uneconomic holders, as I think the House knows, ex-I.R.A. men receive preference. They will not receive preference over those in a prior class, but they will receive preference over others who may not have I.R.A. service in their own class. I am informed that this allottee is carrying on his business satisfactorily having regard to his circumstances. There are no buildings on the place which he has been given, and the inspector's report goes to show that he is carrying out a good amount of tillage and doing everything possible to utilise his land satisfactorily. So far as the Land Commission are concerned, they have, I think, no grievance on that score, according to the reports we have received.

Deputy Beegan wants the Land Commission to take over land, even if the staff is not there to divide it, keeping it on hands and letting it in conacre. It is true that that was the custom in the West of Ireland, and, although at present many uneconomic holders would be quite glad to get conacre, in the end I think, as experience has shown, they would be very dissatisfied indeed if the Land Commission were to hold land in conacre for a very considerable period of years. There seemed to be general dissatisfaction in the West of Ireland with the Congested Districts Board by reason of their having pursued that policy during the last war. The object of the Land Commission is to divide land with a minimum of delay after acquisition. The ideal would be to acquire to-day and divide to-morrow, and I fear that no other plan except that of maximum expedition will be found to satisfy those concerned.

The Deputy would also like us to increase grants for house building and to go back to the old Congested Districts Board system of direct building by the Department for the tenants. In the old Congested Districts Board days, the grants given by that body represented the only avenue by which the tenants could reconstruct their dwelling houses, and at present the situation is entirely different. We have a housing code and we have different Departments, including particularly the Department of Local Government, giving grants for housing. There is a certain anomaly in the Land Commission giving grants, particularly where the grants are at the higher rate than those given by other Departments when the same class of beneficiary is involved, and I fear it would be out of the question for the Land Commission to go back to the old system. We must have regard—I am afraid it is inescapable—to what is being done by other Departments, and, in our scheme of grants, we must pay attention to the amounts being given by other Departments.

I explained to Deputy Cogan that the Land Commission have made no rule against giving land to unmarried applicants. What we have done is to insist that bachelor allottees will get married within a year and, more recently, within two years. Owing to the emergency difficulties and the fact that our inspectors have not been able to get about, we have had to give the bachelors a little more latitude, but we do not intend by any means to allow them to escape.

Are you getting good results?

I hope so. The future will show. Deputy Cogan seems to be under the impression that the Land Commission inspectors have no definite rules to work upon in the allocation of land. They have, of course, very definite instructions, such as that uneconomic holders in the vicinity must get preference over landless men, that ex-employees must get preference over both classes and that in the case of landless men, if their claims are to be seriously considered, they must show that they are in a position to work the land. They must have some means and must satisfy the inspector on that point.

Deputy Nally wants to know why land which the Land Commission hold in County Mayo is not being divided. Nobody ought to know more about the work of the Land Commission in Mayo than Deputy Nally. Not alone have the Land Commission done a great deal in Mayo, but it might be said by Deputies from other counties that Mayo has received exceptional treatment. Really it has not, on account of the fact that there are these enormous masses of rundale holdings there which have to be dealt with, but if land is being held, in nine cases out of ten, it is because the Land Commission are waiting for some other portions to fall into their hands so that they can complete the necessary rearrangement schemes. It is being let, where that position arises, to the best advantage of the local people.

I need scarcely go over the list of estates to which the Deputy referred. The tremendous amount of work which, he tells us, the Land Commission has not done, has evidently made the Deputy forget the huge amount of work that it has done in the matter of land division, migration to other areas, land improvements, housing, roads and drainage. A huge amount of such work has been done. Perhaps the Deputy had not by him the reply to a question which he put to me on the 9th December last. In my reply I stated:

"In County Mayo, the Land Commission and the Congested Districts Board have acquired and divided a total area of approximately 317,000 acres of untenanted land, of which 65,000 acres were acquired under the Land Acts, 1923-39, and 252,000 acres were on estates acquired by the Congested Districts Board and the Estates Commissioners under Acts prior to the Land Act of 1923.

There are in hands for division lands acquired under the Land Acts, 1923-39, to the extent of about 11,750 acres (together with some undivided shares of commonage), of which only about 4,500 acres are arable. Scarcely any arable land remains on hands in Congested Districts Board estates, but there is a considerable residue of mountain and turbary of little value and difficult to dispose of finally. The precise area of such land is not readily available."

I was glad to have Deputy Bartley's commendation in connection with our migration scheme. I can assure him that, so far as I am concerned, I shall do everything possible to see that that work is continued, and continued even at a greater rate, if circumstances permit.

Deputy Dillon suggested that the roads made by the Land Commission should be maintained by somebody. The point is that the roads made by the Land Commission for their allottees are in just the same category as the houses, drains and fences which are also provided. The Land Commission cannot undertake to maintain them and I think it is the duty of the local authority to take over these roads or, if not, the people, as has always been the custom. The Land Commission have never undertaken to maintain them, and are not likely to do so in the future. The people themselves, therefore, will have to endeavour to keep them up.

The Deputy also stated that we are paying half the cost of the land which allottees are now getting, through the halved annuity. The reason is that it would be extremely difficult to draw the line between the older and the newer tenants, and most of the allottees, whether migrants or landless men or ex-employees, would find it very difficult to pay the full annuity. The help that we are giving them is to enable them to work their lands properly. They do not come from, or cannot be compared with, that class which is able to buy land in the open market, and it is the policy of the Land Commission to assist them in this way.

Deputy MacEoin would like us to withdraw the Emergency Powers Order restricting operations and he said that we should continue proceedings, or withdraw, wherever we have notified the owner of our intention to inspect with a view to acquisition. As I have already mentioned, the question arises whether we can do the work that we expected to do. We are not in a position to do it at present, owing to the limitations I have mentioned, but as soon as we get our staff back we shall certainly try to clear up the arrears. I think there would be nothing gained by taking in hands new applications. It is unfortunate that we have cases in hands which we cannot bring to completion within a reasonable time. Until we are in a position to do that, I think the House will recognise that it would be a serious blunder to open the door to entirely new cases.

Deputy Flynn spoke about the amount of money that is being spent in County Kerry. It is not really a question of spending money. The Land Commission have taken over, as I have mentioned already, uncompleted work belonging to the Congested Districts Board. They could not avoid that responsibility, because it was definitely placed upon them when the Congested Districts Board became amalgamated with the Land Commission. The problem of congestion is not at all in the same category in County Kerry as in other western counties. We cannot spend money on land improvement in County Kerry in the same way as in Donegal, Mayo and Galway, because we have not the same conditions, the same problems, and the same responsibilities. If there is some other way in which useful schemes can be promoted, such as by the extension and development of turbary work, I am sure the Commissioners will be very glad to do what they can to see that employment is provided in rural areas and that useful work is done. But there is no use in saying that it is merely a matter of spending money. It is not. All this money is spent on reproductive work. As I have already mentioned, we have not always got the co-operation that we would wish.

Deputy Brennan complains that allottees have to repay advances for buildings which have not been constructed. That is in accordance with the usual procedure. The tenant begins to pay back his advance from the date of his agreement. The advance is there to his credit and he is repaying it with every instalment. When he signed the agreement he definitely promised and undertook to build a house, and for that purpose the Commissioners granted him a loan and, therefore, he is legally bound under the system to repay that as from the date of the agreement. Sometimes tenants are not willing to build; sometimes they have difficulties in completing these obligations, but, if you had not the present system, they would, of course, be relieved of their obligations altogether.

Deputy Belton complained that the work of the Land Commission has destroyed national credit. He tells us that no bank will lend money on the security of land, because a visit from a Land Commission inspector may at any moment deprive the farmer of his asset in his land. I think that point was very well met by Deputy Brennan, who said that he doubted very much whether the position was that farmers could not get credit from the banks, and who suggested that it was not always to the advantage of the farmer, as experience after the last war showed, to get unlimited credit. What injures the credit position is that land is not a realisable asset. The Land Commission and the banks realise that, and the public generally realise it.

It was mentioned that the Land Commission were pressing annuitants who were in arrears. Of course, the figures I have given show that there has been a considerable improvement in the arrears situation. Where those in arrears make any reasonable offer it will, of course, be considered. We have a great many chronic cases where it has been impossible to collect any annuities since 1933, and when the House remembers that arrears were wiped out in 1933 they will appreciate the truth of what I say, that a good many of these chronic cases, in fact, have not paid any annuities since 1923.

Deputy MacEoin referred to local action which immediately follows on the announcement of a holding being for sale and said that in many cases all sections combine in passing a resolution that the sale be stopped and that the Land Commission should take over the land. I am afraid that there has been too much of that kind of thing through the country and I should like to say that, in spite of the fact that it is quite understandable that small-holders and landless men should want to get land, when they are very badly off and when they see that huge profits can be made, and are prepared to pay high rents for these holdings, we have to be careful that we are not doing anything to encourage any kind of lawless agitation, and I would appeal to Deputies not to associate themselves with any agitation of that kind. If an owner of land wants to sell his land, there is nothing in the law of this country to prevent him from doing so. He may have good reasons of his own for selling the land, and, as I have frequently had to say in reply to demands of such a kind, the Land Commission have no power to interfere with or block such a sale. In many cases, the land concerned would not interest the Land Commission, while in other cases it has to be admitted that in normal times it would interest the Land Commission, but even in the congested districts agitations and illegalities of the kind referred to—destroying fences, interfering with auctions or sales in the case of people who are selling or letting their land — not alone does that not encourage the Land Commission to take action, even if action could be taken—it cannot be taken at present because we are not undertaking any new commitments—but even if we were proceeding entirely on a normal basis and were absolutely free to go ahead with the matter, the House can take it from me that the reaction of the Land Commission in regard to agitations of that kind is not to take any action whatever.

There is a constitutional way of pursuing this matter, and it can be brought to the attention of the Land Commission through the proper channels, but no encouragement should be given to local parties who want to create agitation. When normal times return, the Land Commission will acquire land where that is necessary. That is their policy, particularly in connection with the relief of congestion. Immediately normal conditions return, the Land Commission will concentrate their energies on that, but illegal action is not going to help anybody and it certainly is not going to induce the Land Commission to take action which in any case they might not think it wise to take.

I asked the Minister a question, to which he did not advert at all, and that is what consideration, if any, has been given to the carrying out of experiments in co-operative farming?

I am afraid the matter has not been considered. The policy on which the Land Commission is working at present would have to be changed entirely so as to enable lands to be given by them for that purpose. Last year I mentioned that the Minister for Agriculture had set up a committee of experts to look into the agricultural position, and if their findings have a bearing, as they may very well have, on Land Commission policy, then I am sure that the Land Commission will reconsider the position. I have no information whatever about experiments of the kind the Deputy has referred to, and I do not know that they are in operation. There is a great deal of theorising going on, but when the war is over the plans may be entirely different from what some of the present theorists expect.

I have another question to put to the Minister. Where the Land Commission are dividing up a large estate, is any consideration given at any time to the organisation of land in the immediate vicinity? Take the case of a man who owns a farm of land at a considerable distance from his parent holding, is any effort made to avail of the opportunity of providing him with a holding that would be more economical, when a big parcel of land is available for division in his neighbourhood? Do you go outside the area to consider what problems are involved, or would the Minister consider it wise that the Land Commission should concern themselves with that aspect of land ownership?

I think that these two matters—not alone co-operative farming but the matter to which the Deputy has referred of the conditions in the area generally from the agricultural point of view—are probably matters for the Department of Agriculture. As I have already indicated, Land Commission policy may very well be affected by changes in agricultural policy, but it would be a great mistake for the Land Commission, even if they were in a position at present to carry out inquiries, to embark on big changes until they know what plans we are going to make for agriculture in the future.

Surely the Minister realises that the question of land ownership and land division is very important in our land economy, and that when an opportunity exists, as a result of the division of a big estate— possibly, the only opportunity that can be availed of in a district—to adjust such problems, that is the time to adjust them so as to enable holdings to be worked more economically?

I think the Deputy must feel that persons interested in these problems, and who believe in them, ought to be in a position to deal with them themselves.

Let us understand each other. Supposing a farmer with a holding adjoining, contiguous to, or in the neighbourhood of a large estate in which the Land Commission are interested makes representations that he has two holdings, and that the outside one is not economically placed from the point of view of working it properly, is such a position examined at any time by the Land Commission? He is prepared to surrender the outside holding provided that he gets land from the estate which is to be divided, and which would be more convenient for him.

If the holding is beneficial for Land Commission purposes and would improve the position of small holders in the vicinity, then it is quite possible to arrange for that.

But it is not generally examined?

Not generally, but if an application comes in it is considered, of course.

Question put and agreed to.
Top
Share