Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 11 Apr 1946

Vol. 100 No. 14

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

Mr. R. Walsh

When I reported progress last night I was appealing to the Minister to deal with the problem of congestion. That is really one of the greatest problems in the country. I suggest that the problem of the rural slum should be treated as considerately as the problem of the city, town or village slum. We all agree on the supreme necessity of having a new housing scheme in relation to our towns and cities and even our villages. We all agree, regardless of Party, that that problem should be dealt with. I know that there will be a great measure of agreement also as to the necessity for removing the rural slum that exists mainly in my part of the country, that has its roots in the very bad historical past. All the wishful thinking in the world will not remove that problem. The problem was recognised by the British Government. A special commission was set up to deal with it in 1907 which produced a very lengthy and elaborate report, as a result of which the Land Act of 1909 was passed. Under that Act, the whole of Connaught was to be dealt with by a special Department called the Congested Districts Board. One of the great mistakes, in fact, I would say, the great blot on the Land Act of 1923, was the abolition of the Congested Districts Board. The British Government realised that that special problem had to be dealt with in a special manner and by a special department. The Congested Districts Board existed long before 1909, but it had only limited powers. As a result of the Land Act of 1909 its powers were largely increased and the whole of Connaught was handed over to its jurisdiction, and also the County of Donegal, County Kerry and West Cork.

The officials of the Congested Districts Board were called Castle officials but they were practically all Irishmen and they served Ireland in their own way. Men like Sir Henry Doran did a tremendous amount of work in helping to solve the problem. They established policy and indicated a line for any succeeding chief of the Department to follow. Unfortunately, certain things happened to interrupt that magnificent work. There was the first World War. Then we had what happened in this country and then there was the Land Act of 1923 which abolished the board and handed over the areas concerned to be dealt with as part of the general problem of land settlement. There are several facets to that problem in the West and other parts of the country. I am not one who maintains that it can be fully solved by land settlement. The Congested Districts Board adopted other methods and tried other schemes. In some directions they did not meet with much success but, at any rate, they tried them and perhaps some of their schemes were not tried out for a sufficient length of time. They tried developing the home-spun industry and handcrafts. They tried developing the fishing industry. The history of their experiments along those lines should be reviewed carefully to see whether or not under modern conditions a greater success could be made of them and thus help to solve the problem of congestion.

I do not agree with some of the statements made yesterday by Deputy Cafferky and Deputy Commons. I do not think that it would be a wise policy to prevent a smallholder in a congested area in County Mayo, with a valuation of only 50/-, from selling his holding. I know very well that it causes a lot of heart burning when neighbours who are hungry for land see, as they think, their one chance of getting some land disappearing. But, if there is anything in the lip service that we all pay to the three F's, fixity of tenure, fair rent and free sale, surely such a policy would be trampling on the principle of the three F's. Take a family in a congested area which, owing to the death of the head of the family or ill-health or some other misfortune, is forced into the position that they have to sell the homestead. They do not like to do that. It is not a hasty decision on their part. To quote an old saying in the country: it is the last stone on their beads when they have to do it. Is it fair then to stop such a sale; to stop these unfortunate people getting the market price of that holding, because that is what it amounts to if the law steps in to stop it? There is no reality in the cry of free sale if the Land Commission or any other Government Department steps in; in that way free sale becomes a sham.

I also do not agree with the statement by Deputy Cafferky or Deputy Commons about leading a great cattle-driving movement in the County Mayo; not that I think that cattle-driving was immoral or wrongful in its day. There was a time when it was the one weapon left in the hands of the people. But I would remind these two Deputies that the position in Mayo to-day is that there is very little land left that can be considered arable which should be acquired by the Land Commission for distribution. Even if the Land Commission came to a decision to-morrow to acquire every holding in the County Mayo of over £30 valuation, it would not go near solving the congested problem there.

I would ask the Minister to come to a decision regarding counties like Mayo and fix a definite size for farms in those counties. I may shock the House when I say that I believe that it is right that we should limit the amount of land held by people, but I do say it. In countries like Denmark, Holland and Belgium there is a definite limitation to the amount of land that can be held by any citizen of the State. If it is right in these countries, I do not see why it should not be right here. This problem has got to be faced and acknowledged by the Government and by all Parties. I appeal to the Minister to tackle the problem in that way and start in counties like Mayo by saying that any person with a holding of over £50 valuation or £40 valuation —I would leave it to the judgement of the Land Commission as to what would be reasonable—should get the option of leaving the county and getting an exchange of holding. But even when that is done, I acknowledge that it is not going to solve the congested problem in the County Mayo; that it will not go anywhere near solving that problem.

Not alone should the Minister deal with that problem from the point of view of land distribution and land settlement, but, in co-operation with other Government Departments and Ministers, industrial development, the creation of employment, reclamation and afforestation should be taken in as part of a general scheme to solve that terrible problem of the rural slums. The sands are running out. If the Government do not take this matter seriously in our time and tackle it in a serious way, it will be solved in a way that none of us would like to see it solved. It will be solved by the people leaving those areas and going to foreign countries. I ask the Minister to realise that the old generation of men and women whose hearts were rooted in the soil as it were, who would not want to leave their homesteads if they could possibly help it, is dying out. They are being succeeded, if you like, by a more ambitious generation, a generation more in touch with modern ways of thinking and acting. That generation is not going to be content to stick to a few acres of bog in some mountainy district in the County Mayo, or some other county like it. They are going to get out and go where they think they can earn a decent living under decent conditions. They are going to clear out to some foreign country. What will happen then has happened before.

We have heard of the eviction campaigns. I discovered in the past, through my contacts with old people of the famine years and the years succeeding them, that many of the ranches were not created by evictions but by desperate economic conditions which forced people to sell all they could, to put the latch on the door and to clear out to Great Britain or the United States. I have been told that on several occasions by old men of that generation. I do not say or wish to imply that conditions now are anything like those which then existed, but if something is not done to deal with this problem in a serious way and in a through fashion to improve the conditions under which these people are living, the young men and women between 20 and 30 years of age will not be content and will solve the problem in their own way by clearing out. I ask the Minister to tackle this problem and to get all the officials in the Land Commission interested in it, to get them to regard it as serious as the slum problem in our towns and cities and to come to the House with any proposals he may have for additional powers to deal with it and to appeal to all Parties to look on it as just as serious and just as urgent as the slum problem in our towns and cities.

Mr. D. Morrissey

I hope the Parliamentary Secretary——

Mr. McMenamin

The Minister.

Mr. D. Morrissey

I beg the Minister's pardon; I have been so accustomed to addressing a Parliamentary Secretary for the last 14 days that I find it rather hard to accustom myself to the use of the word "Minister", particularly as I did not see a Minister sitting on the Front Bench for the past 14 days. I hope the Minister will give due consideration to the eloquent appeal which has just been made to him by his colleague, but I must confess that I find it rather hard to reconcile Deputy Walsh's chastisement of his two colleagues, Deputy Cafferky and Deputy Commons, for their suggestion that one of the three F's, free sale, should be destroyed with his appeal to the Minister to destroy another, fixity of tenure. I hope the Minister will give a little more consideration than apparently the Deputy has given to limiting the farm which a person will be allowed to occupy. The £40 valuation farm in Mayo would be looked upon almost as a ranch, but I can assure the Deputy that we would not get very excited about a £40 valuation farm in Tipperary or Limerick.

Mr. R. Walsh

I did not say you would.

Mr. D. Morrissey

I rose on this Estimate to ask for information for which I have asked before, and I hope I will get a more satisfactory answer on this occasion, now that the Land Commission have had a few more years in which to consider the matter. I should like to know why the Land Commission persist in allowing years, in some cases, to elapse from the date on which they take possession of an estate to the date on which they divide it. During the time which elapses from its acquisition to its division, they do nothing but let the land in conacre year in and year out, so that, at the end of the period, when they are ready to allot the estate, the land has been considerably worsened and in many cases deprived almost entirely of its fertility.

We know that, when land is let in conacre year in and year out, very often it is a different person who has a particular parcel of land on the estate, and that person has no interest, good, bad or indifferent, in the land beyond getting the last ounce out of it. So far as I know, in general lettings, he is not required by the Land Commission to put anything into it, because I think I am correct in saying that the Land Commission, generally speaking, lets only from year to year. They do not do what some farmers very wisely do. When farmers, for health or other reasons, are compelled to let their land in conacre, if they see that their difficulties are not going to come to an end in a year or two, they take the precaution of letting the land for two or three years and of insisting that one of the crops put in by the person who takes the conacre shall be a manure crop. I must confess that I have never yet been able to understand why two, three, four, five and six years should elapse.

Mr. McMenamin

And many more.

Mr. D. Morrissey

I am not putting it any further; I am deliberately keeping it within reasonable bounds. I know that there is a considerable amount of work to be done when a farm has been acquired, but I also know that a fair amount of work is done before the Land Commission decide to acquire it. I know that in many cases there are so many applicants that there would not be a blade of grass, much less an acre per head, for them. I know that it takes a considerable amount of time, work and trouble to interview each applicant, to check up on his story and so on, but surely, with their years of experience, and with the machinery, trained inspectors and staff generally, at the disposal of the Land Commission, it should not take a number of years. I should like the Minister to give us an assurance that, for the future, in respect of whatever number of estates may be left to be acquired and divided, there will be some speeding up, and that, as I say, the allottees will not find when they get their allotments that they have been deprived to a great extent of their fertility.

The next matter on which I should like to get some information and some assurance is the matter of vesting. I have never yet been able to understand why some farms can be vested in two, three, five or six years, while others cannot be vested in 20 or 30 years. I think that, generally speaking, if the person to whom a farm, a parcel of land or a holding is given is a suitable person, to whom the holding is given on merit and merit alone, it is to the advantage not only of the occupant but of the State that the holding should be vested in him as soon as possible. I know that in recent years—perhaps it was always so, but not to the same extent as in recent years—a number of people succeeded in getting land for one reason or other who, perhaps, were not making the best use of it and I know that the Minister is now congratulating himself on the fact that that land was not vested; but, notwithstanding all the talk we had here, notwithstanding the special measure the Minister had to bring before the House, I think the percentage of allottees who were unsatisfactory and who were not giving of their best in the working of the land given to them would be very small. These are just two points. There are some other points I could refer to, perhaps, at some length and I could take this Estimate and make a general speech on it and then take it sub-head after sub-head right from the beginning, and, I think, I may say, without boasting, it would be within my capacity to do so. However, even at the risk of being accused of not opposing the Minister and not putting up opposition to him, I do not wish at the moment to go into any other details. I would be grateful to him if, when replying, he would deal with these two points—the delay in allotting land that has been acquired and the delay in vesting land that has been allotted.

Mr. B. Maguire

The interest taken in land Bills here is indicative of the general interest taken by the people of the country in the land generally. I suppose more legislation has been passed here dealing with land than in regard to any other subject of interest in our community. All of us feel that land is the foundation of our economy. It is our history and we have an interest in it, apart from the fact that, whether we are directly concerned with the land as a livelihood or not, we feel that the value of land is important in our lives. That compels us, on every occasion when the question arises here, to make some contribution.

I am interested in that long-standing question of how far the Land Commission is going to relieve that menacing problem of congests of the West and elsewhere. Statements have been made here in the last few days and on other occasions when this question comes up and they almost invariably refer to the poor condition of the congests in the West, with particular reference to the Mayo and Galway people. I ask the Minister not to allow himself to be entirely influenced by those references. There are congests in other parts of the country as well, and it is his duty to ensure fair and equitable adjustment, so far as the means are available, in all parts of those afflicted districts. Judging from the references made by the various speakers, I can clearly understand how difficult it must be for the Department dealing with this problem of land division to get a decision upon which they could act formally. Various interests suggest that farms should not be allotted into holdings of less than 40 or 50 acres. Others suggest smaller areas, while others again suggest that the larger farms of more than 100 acres are an essential part of our economy. While I am one who speaks mainly for the relief of congestion and advocates the division of land towards that end, as I am so convinced of the necessity of dealing with that problem that I say that no new holding should be given by the Land Commission until the outstanding and long-menacing problem of congestion has been dealt with, I can see that those who advocate the retention of a number of large holdings are not without reason on their side.

Large farms are essential to our economy, essential to the grazing of cattle, which can be reared and must be sold from the small farms at an early age. If we are to continue the development of our tillage schemes in the growing of wheat and such crops, they are essential also, as it is only by the introduction of machinery that this policy can be carried out successfully. It is fortunate that the experiments of the last 25 or 30 years in the distribution of land are available now to the Department. They have the knowledge gained over those years at their disposal now. Apart from the economic necessity of maintaining large farms in certain parts of the country, I believe they are useful also in giving employment and that smallholders find suitable employment for themselves and their families in connection with the scientific development and utilisation of those large holdings.

In the further development which the Land Commission has in mind— that is, the migration of people from the congested areas, transferring them as colonies to various parts of the Midlands—the opportunity arises to establish the co-operative system. Machinery on modern lines might be provided by the Department, with proper technical instruction to train the new allottees in the use of those machines and in the scientific development of their tillage and other crops. Without some form of co-operation, no matter what the Land Commission may do, they must remain always the problem of the congested areas. The most the Department can aim at is to relieve them to the utmost in their power. But by an effort of co-operation, which could be more easily established amongst colonies in a new area, experience could be gathered that might be applicable later on to the areas where congestion exists at present. As we have not land enough to go round to make large economic holdings for all our people, we must by experiment, commonsense, tests and trials, find the best means of utilising the land available to the utmost benefit of the community.

In my own constituency—Leitrim and Sligo—sufficient attention has not been given by the Land Commission in the past. I am satisfied about that and request the Minister to look into the figures of the areas of land divided amongst people in those two counties. He should examine the condition of the uneconomic holdings there and compare with the holdings of the land which has been divided. The Department's records will show a considerable area divided in those two counties, but if they are examined he will find that the vast bulk of it is mountain or bogs, which is not land and was never intended to be used as such. Then he will realise the small attempt made in those two counties to relieve the problem existing there.

On the question of distribution of bogland, I advocate that, where bog is available in any large area, instead of distributing it in plots to people four or five miles away, many of whom, unless conditions alter very much, will not utilise that bog, the area should be retained by the Land Commission, let to users at a nominal rent and cut in such a way as to enable a uniform cutting, having regard to the advantage of drainage and possible reclamation subsequently. Areas of bog have been distributed in an inconsiderate way, wastefully and given directly to owners of holdings far away. Many of them may use the bog immediately but others may not use it for the next 20 years. The bog is left in a hopeless condition. There is no uniformity or care in its cutting, nor can any useful purpose be made of the land from which the bog has been cut. In the normal way that cutaway bog can be reclaimed and made very useful land and could be a good addition to small holdings. More care should be taken in the handling of any farm, whether it be a mountain farm or otherwise. Indiscriminate distribution is worse than no distribution.

Reference has been made to the size of a farm on which a farmer should be able to make a living. Many speakers from the South and Midlands pressed for a larger area, 30 or 40 acres. I may say seriously that it is not the area of land that will determine the living that may be made from it. It is the individual who is placed there who will very largely determine that. Care in the selection of those to whom land is to be given is of the utmost importance. It is really essential if the scheme is to be successful. Deputies have advocated here that no migrations should be made. They suggest that whatever congestion there may be, either in the West or South, the problem should be allowed to remain there, and give the land, where it is available for division, to those in the immediate neighbourhood.

Will anybody with commonsense suggest that the land does not belong to the people of Ireland, and that it is not the duty of a Government to divide that land in such a way as will tend to the best interests of the greater number and to the benefit of the community as a whole? In other words, you must put on to the farms which the Government have determined it is their duty to divide, men with training and experience, men who have practical knowledge of farming and who have shown that they are able to work the land.

I do not agree that 20 or 30 acres are not sufficient in the hands of the right man. Take the case of men who might be migrated from the West of Ireland. Many of these people have been reared, perhaps their families have been for generations, on 15 acres of bad land. These are men who have been tried and trained. Take them out and give them 30 acres of good land and there can be no question that they will make a success of their holdings.

In to-day's paper I read Deputy Corry's contribution to the debate. Deputy Corry is a prominent member of the Government Party and his words can be taken as representing some indication of policy. He referred in a slighting way to the hen-roosters and he said it was a mistake to take them and place them in the Midlands amongst respectable society. He said that his workmen would not exchange their present jobs for a 30 or 40-acre farm. In one respect I was very glad to hear that, because it shows that some farms must be very prosperous when employees on them would be beyond accepting a 30 or 40-acre farm. Deputy Corry also said that some of the migrants who received a 30 or 40-acre farm had sold them for £1,100 recently. We must take it, therefore, that in a choice between accepting a £1,100 farm or a job with Deputy Corry on his farm, the job with Deputy Corry as a farm labourer would be better. That is a very big asset and there should be no question of farm strikes for better wages if that represents the condition of farm workers in the Midlands and in the South.

Mr. McAuliffe

Do you believe that?

Mr. B. Maguire

I merely say I was glad to hear it. I do not know the conditions and I cannot contradict the statement. I suggest that the Land Commission must be very careful in the future when receiving applications for land that, in giving farms, they will not do men serious injury, especially if it is not a bigger farm than 30 or 40 acres. That sort of applicant must be considered carefully in the future by the Land Commission, because it might be that by giving him a farm he will be injured rather than benefited. I hope that Deputy Corry will lead no more deputations of beet growers and other specialised farmers for increased prices for their products, seeing that the conditions on his farm are so prosperous at the moment, because any increased prices will have to be borne by many of the hen roosters so miserably placed in the West. Let us have no more applications from these prosperous farmers or well-to-do farm labourers.

There is another aspect. I strongly resent the remarks of Deputy Corry or any other Deputy to the effect that the men from the West have not a claim on the land of this country, no matter where it is available. Let us consider the man who led the great and very successful land reform movement in this country, Michael Davitt, whose centenary we are celebrating this year If any of his progeny happened to be in Mayo and if he was an applicant for a farm in Meath or Westmeath, according to Deputy Corry and, I think, Deputy Flanagan, that man should not be given a parcel of land because he would be considered unsuitable for it and would not be regarded as an acquisition elsewhere. I think such a suggestion is disgraceful. It never should have been made, and it should not have come from a man like Deputy Corry, a prominent member of the Fianna Fáil Party and a man who takes pride in the service that he alleges he gave this country when he was an outstanding republican. He ought to know the meaning of republicanism that existed in the minds of such men as my own county-man, Seán MacDermott. He had in mind no distinction of class. He merely wanted to serve his country so that his country might utilise its resources without any regard to creed, class or personal gain. If Deputy Corry was a fighting man in the cause of freedom, surely he must have understood the principles of the men who accomplished so much in that struggle.

I trust, in following up the division of land, the Minister will not have regard to what may have been said by members of his Party against the congests of the West, and that he will establish his reputation as a man striving to do the right thing and ensure that it will be the first consideration, so far as his Department is concerned, to utilise the available land in this country for the relief of congests in the West and elsewhere.

Mr. Beirne

I join with other Deputies in protesting against the remarks made last evening by Deputy Corry. The Deputy's speech, in the first instance, was not by any means charitable. Before casting a reflection on the people of the West of Ireland Deputy Corry should have gone back on history for a while. He seems to me to be one of those men who forget that in the West of Ireland an agitation began which leaves Deputy Corry and many of his colleagues settled in comfort in their homes. It was sad to hear Deputy Corry display his eloquence in such a manner, and it was not very appropriate, as a means of perpetuating and honouring the memory of one great Irishman, Michael Davitt, who was born in Mayo. Deputy Corry on this question may have been voicing the feelings of his Party, and if such is the case I am sorry and regret it very much. However, from a few members of his Party we have got an assurance that the Deputy was not voicing their outlook. I was glad to hear that.

When speaking on this Estimate last year I brought to the Minister's notice many grievances which exist in my constituency. To a certain extent I must compliment the Minister on having some of these grievances redressed. Some are still outstanding. I wish to bring to his notice now a few matters which are a source of worry to me and perhaps to his Department. The outstanding grievance in my constituency concerns water supplies. I mentioned the matter on this Estimate last year. In one instance where three or four estates were taken over, absolutely no provision was made for a water supply, either for domestic use or for live stock, and despite representations that I made both in the House and by way of correspondence with the Land Commission, practically nothing has been done. It is regrettable that people have to travel perhaps three or four miles to get water for live stock. I appeal to the Minister to expedite the provision of an adequate water supply on these lands. The evil is of long standing. For practically ten years nothing has been done about it. The Minister stated that the activities of the Department would be greatly improved in future. I am glad to hear that, and suggest for consideration some matters that have been overlooked.

I refer to housing. I brought to the Minister's notice last year particulars regarding the materials used on houses built on Land Commission holdings. As well as I could, I pictured the conditions in my constituency, particularly in the neighbourhood of Boyle, where houses were erected some years ago. Most of these houses have given ridiculously bad service, as the roofs are bad, the walls are bad, and they are damp. In fact, the general appearance of the houses is anything but presentable, and they need immediate repairs. I ask the Minister to have the necessary repairs carried out, so that the tenants would be provided with better living accommodation. I also wish to call the Minister's attention to the condition of roads which were constructed by the Land Commission when lands were being allotted. I expect the Minister will say that the position could be dealt with under the rural improvement scheme. While I have great admiration for that scheme and realise its usefulness, I say that its application is impracticable in a number of cases, particularly to roads on these farms. The person who is living on a road that is convenient to the main road is quite happy. He has not to worry about the road leading to his farm, but the man living a mile away from the main road will have to contribute to the road improvement scheme. I approve of that scheme and encourage people to avail of it, but that is not possible in all cases. Some arrangement should be made by the Land Commission for the maintenance of these roads or, as an alternative, the county council, by arrangement with the Land Commission, should keep them in a proper condition. As several of these roads are becoming impassable, the longer the present position continues the worse they will become. In the instance that I am referring to the people concerned cannot avail of the rural improvement scheme.

There are in my constituency and, perhaps, in other parts of the country a number of unoccupied holdings. It is regrettable that that should be the case. I suggest that any outstanding arrears should be wiped off immediately. As I pass through County Roscommon I notice a number of unoccupied holdings on which houses were built many years ago. When the houses are not occupied they are deteriorating. The first thing the Land Commission should do in such cases is to select tenants and put them into occupation so that the houses would be preserved and the cost of repairs avoided. It is hard to define an economic holding. I never heard it defined. I presume that an economic holding is one that will maintain a man, his wife and perhaps three children. In my opinion some holdings that have been allotted are not sufficient to maintain that family. In many cases 30 statute acres of land would be adequate for that purpose. It depends on the quality of the land. In Roscommon, which has the reputation of being a county with fairly good land, 30 statute acres is not regarded as an economic holding, particularly in the case of land which has been divided. People on such farms are often in straitened circumstances. I know through business connections and otherwise that they find it particularly hard to make ends meet.

As to tillage on Land Commission holdings, I should like to know if the Land Commission are complying with the regulations in that respect. I have a suspicion that they are not. My travels through County Roscommon make me more suspicious in that respect. In this hour of need, when Europe is faced with very difficult conditions, the Land Commission should put their shoulder to the wheel and make an effort to fulfil their obligations. That work should not be done in a slipshod way. It has been done in a slipshod way. I have seen tillage done by the Land Commission which was no credit to them and the results of which were very bad.

I am not satisfied with the Land Commission in regard to rates charged for grazing cattle on farms that have been acquired and which remain to be divided. I know instances where the rates have been excessive. They varied from £3 for a 1½-year-old beast to about £4 for a 2-year-old or 2½-year-old beast. I consider these charges excessive. The Minister should be satisfied just to cover his out-of-pocket expenses in allowing cattle on those farms or letting them for tillage or in conacre. In answer to a question I put down, the Minister admitted that he made a net profit on these farms. That is not right. I do not approve of it. There should be no element of profit. In two instances the Minister admitted that the profit was in the neighbourhood of £100. That should not be the case. I also think there should be more supervision in taking in cattle. I have seen cattle on those farms. I have seen them roving around those farms where there was not a blade of grass to be got. I have seen them in October and November, when they were practically unsaleable. Overstocking should be discontinued.

To-day a Deputy made reference to land agitation in Roscommon. In that connection I am glad to have an opportunity of referring to a particular case. Even though the matter may be subjudice at the moment I want to say something that might clear the atmosphere and to give my opinion as to what the position really is. In doing so, I cannot altogether absolve the Land Commission for their conduct in connection with this farm. As a matter of fact, I am inclined to censure them. I do not like disturbance. I do not like acts of hostility.

Minister for Lands (Mr. Moylan)

On a point of order, I wonder is this matter the subject of court proceedings?

Mr. Beirne

The court proceedings are over. I do not approve of lawlessness, but, to a certain extent, the tenants in this locality were driven to extremes through the inactivity and complacency of the Land Commission. I have received first-hand information as to what the position is. As far back as 1939, Land Commission officials inspected the farm, but owing to the emergency no action could be taken. I absolve the Land Commission for their inactivity during the emergency, but there is one thing in respect of which I cannot forgive them, and that is their consent to the sale of this farm to a man in the locality. At that time I did not have the honour of representing Roscommon, but I understand from the people in the district that their representatives in the Dáil at the time—I am not going to mention names—promised them definitely that, when the emergency would be over, the farm would be acquired and divided among the numerous uneconomic tenants in the area. In that hope the people concerned waited patiently until a certain event took place last December. They discovered that a gentleman had purchased the farm. It is reasonable to assume that the Deputies to whom I have referred must have made representations to the Land Commission in connection with this farm. At least it was stated to the people, and I have correspondence to prove it from one of the Deputies that he made representations to the Land Commission in connection with this farm.

In such a case, the Land Commission should have withheld permission to purchase. Had they done so, all this trouble would have been avoided. I say they made a mistake. I have received a letter from the Land Commission, dated 3rd March, stating that they had under consideration the question of instituting proceedings for the acquisition of part of the lands which I mentioned—250 acres—owned by Mr. George Clarke. I am delighted to hear that, but there is one point I would raise. I have no prejudice against Mr. Clarke. In my opinion Mr. Clarke is a very good and desirable citizen, and a very good neighbour, and, as far as I know, in that particular district there is a spirit of goodwill between the tenants and Mr. Clarke, and I hope to maintain that goodwill.

But I understand that this man bought the farm, that he has cleared it of all the timber and that he has realised something in the neighbourhood of £1,500 for timber alone. That, with the income from the farm, for grazing, tillage, etc., should be considered when this farm is being acquired by the Land Commission. In addition, the responsibility will rest on someone for the replanting of this farm and I should like that responsibility should be fixed on someone. I do not say on whom, but I do say that if £1,500 worth of timber was sold off that farm someone should be responsible for replanting.

A rather novel point was raised to me to-day by a constituent, on which I should like to get some enlightenment from the Minister or from his Department, by letter or otherwise. The question relates to a small farm on the De Freyne estate. Perhaps it would more briefly convey what I wish to convey if I read a letter addressed by the Minister's Department to the particular tenant concerned:—

"2 Eanair, 1946.

R. O. No. 98/7524 (4/25/7495), Estate C.D.B. (De Freyne). Mary Leonard and James Leonard. Lands: Erritt. Revised half-yearly instalment £1 13s. 1d.

A Chara,

In reply to your letter dated the 17th December, 1945, I am desired by the Land Commission to inform you that under the provisions of Part III of the Land Act, 1933, arrears amounting to £6 os. 4d. in respect of the above-described holding were funded and made repayable over a period of approximately 50 years by a Funding Instalment of 3s. 0d. which is included in the Revised Instalment of £1 13s. 1d. now payable out of the above-mentioned holding."

That means, in effect, that this person is paying at the rate of 3/- a year a debt which amounted in 1933 to £6 0s. 4d. He is informed by the Land Commission that he is to continue to pay that for 50 years, so that in 50 years, so far as I can make out the figures, he will have paid £15. To my mind that amounts to extortion on the part of the Land Commission. I should like an explanation from the Minister as to that. I should like, in conclusion, to pay a tribute to the Land Commission officials, particularly in the Castlerea area. I find them courteous, obliging and painstaking. Everything I put before them is dealt with expeditiously.

Mr. P. Burke (County Dublin)

I should like to refer to the question of uneconomic holdings in the County Dublin. We have a problem in County Dublin just as we have it in other counties. It is a rather serious problem, especially in North County Dublin. There are farmers there who have only two or three acres of sandy land out of which they are trying to make a living. They have made numerous applications for additional land to the Land Commission. I would, therefore, ask the Minister to expedite the division of land in that area, especially the land which has been taken over by the Land Commission, and to see that these hardworking farmers who are trying to make a living on these small-holdings will have their holdings brought up to the maximum acreage allowed, or as near as possible to it. I wish to pay a tribute to the Minister for his outlook of what an economic holding should be. Unfortunately, in County Dublin a number of slum holdings were created some years ago. I am glad to be in a position to compliment the Minister on coming to the conclusion that an economic holding should consist of from 30 to 35 acres, which will at least give a man a chance to make a decent living and not have to seek work elsewhere to enable him to live.

There is also a good deal of land in County Dublin which is under water. I know that that is a matter for the Board of Works, but I would ask the Land Commission to make a recommendation to the Board of Works to have such holdings, which are not vested, properly drained. The question of the revestment of holdings is also an urgent one. I have forwarded a number of applications for revesting from people in County Dublin and I have received a very favourable reply from the Minister for Lands. There are also some smallholders in County Dublin who are anxious to get a loan to buy machinery to till their land. I should like the Land Commission to give immediate consideration to claims of such farmers who are anxious to do something for themselves and their families and for the country as a whole in the way of producing food. In such cases special consideration should be given to the revesting of these holdings.

The maintenance of Land Commission roads in County Dublin is another problem which requires attention. Over and over again representations have been made in that matter. I know it will be said that the rural improvements scheme would solve that problem. Unfortunately, when a road is made by the Land Commission leading to six or seven holdings, one farmer will probably not agree to contribute his share when an effort is made to improve the road under the rural improvements scheme. I should like the Minister to find a solution for that problem so that these roads will be put into decent repair. Perhaps a recommendation could be made to the county commissioner to take over such roads after some time. The people concerned are badly handicapped when threshing engines and other heavy machines have to travel over these roads, especially in the winter time. There are also some holdings in the County Dublin which are devoid of water. I am happy to state that the Minister for Lands, as a result of representations I made to him, has agreed to sink pumps on some of these holdings and I wish to thank him for that.

Yesterday evening Deputy Corry made some remarks with reference to the West of Ireland and County Mayo in particular. I wish to dissociate myself from these remarks because, as a Fianna Fáil Deputy, I know that the Fianna Fáil policy is directed towards the welfare of every section of the community. They are not concerned with sectional interests, but with every section of the community. Deputy Corry's remarks are to be deeply regretted. We all have heard of the old cry: "To hell or Connaught." Sullivan's history tells us that in the whole of Munster neither the voice of the ploughman nor the lowing of cows could be heard. It is regrettable that a Deputy like Deputy Corry should make such uncharitable remarks about Irishmen who are living in that part of the country and who are in their present plight through no fault of their own. I am sure that he was speaking for himself alone and I leave him to judge his own remarks later on.

I again impress upon the Minister the necessity for asking the Land Commission to divide the few estates they have taken over in North County Dublin. There are a number of congests in the Rush area especially who are clamouring for land and who are worthy persons to receive land.

Mr. Spring

I was very glad to hear Deputy Burke say that the Minister has defined an economic holding as a holding of 35 acres. Since I came into this House, I have listened to the same old story on this Estimate. We have heard all about the division of land, the sub-division of land, and so on, but I want to put before this House now, not the division of land, but the matter of the flooding of land. Do the Land Commission propose to do anything to relieve people who are suffering greatly by reason of the flooding of their lands for years past? During certain times of the year, people down in my constituency who hold land to the extent of about 40 or 50 acres are unable to utilise more than 6 or 10 acres because of flooding, and I think it is most unfair to ask these people to pay rates and rent for land which they cannot use. There should be some relief for these people.

We had a Bill here some weeks ago which proposes to give the Minister power to take land from people who got it from the Land Commission. Money is spent in giving land to allottees and money is then spent on evicting them from their holdings. It stands to reason that money should be spent in draining land which is flooded at certain times of the year. I will be told that there is a Drainage Act which is to come into operation, but, while waiting for that Drainage Act to come into operation, these people will suffer quite a lot.

Only a few weeks ago, I asked a question here with regard to relieving flooding by the sea in Fenit Island. This little island comprises about three hundred acres and eight families live there. The land is the best you could find in County Kerry and the farmers there are most industrious. They grow wheat, beet and so on to get an existence for themselves and their families. Some 20 years ago, a wall was built around the island to keep out the sea. The wall was stopped at a certain point and I believe that, if it were extended for another 100 yards, it would completely relieve the flooding, and would give these people a chance of saving their holdings.

I should like also to bring to the notice of the Minister another most important factor. At a certain point, the road across the island cuts into the sea and the farmers living there must go to their farmyards and homes through a road across the strand. This road is not the best in Ireland. It is a road which winds up a very high incline and the people who have to come from the island in the early morning to get to the fairs and markets in Tralee are in danger of being capsized at any moment. The Minister should take up the matter of having a road made there. I happened to be speaking to people on the island some time ago and I was told that they were quite willing to give some of their land to those from whom land would have to be taken to provide this road, as they believe it would be a blessing to them and would save them from having to expose themselves to the dangers to which they have to expose themselves at present when travelling through the strand in the early hours of a winter morning on their way to fairs and markets in Tralee.

As I have said, something must be done to relieve flooding. My county is probably one of the most hard-hit in that respect. From my own town, one can see acres of land which were at one time utilised for the growing of the best oats in the country now completely water-logged, and even the train travelling from Tralee to Dingle has been held up for hours because of flooding of the line. That is disgraceful and shocking in a country like this where we talk about utilising the land and where we spend money on the division of land when we should be doing some thing to save land which at the moment is flooded. Travelling back about nine miles from Tralee to Lixnaw and Abbeydorney, one can see great areas of water, where the people even in summer have to put cocks of hay on the embankment. All this could be remedied by the expenditure of a few thousand pounds, because when breaches appear in embankments, if they are taken in time and repaired, the flooding of many acres of land could be prevented.

The same applies to the Castlemaine district. The Minister was down there some years ago and he should understand the position. We, the Deputies of that constituency, have been pestered by these people, and rightly so, to get something done for them and I hold that the Minister should tackle the job. If, as I say, the people have to wait for the Drainage Act, they will have to suffer for quite some time. We must save the land the people have, and if people are to be asked to pay rent and rates for land they cannot utilise, it is a great injustice. I ask the Minister to consider giving these people some relief and not to compel them to pay for land they cannot use.

Mr. O'Donnell

It is the custom, when starting a long-winded oration, to say that you do not intend to speak for very long, but in my case about ten minutes will do, and I will time myself. Deputy Spring has forestalled me to a certain extent, because I proposed to speak on practically the same subject. I am glad, however, that he did so, because he paved the way for me. I received a letter yesterday from the Land Commission—the Minister has a dual capacity; he is Minister for Lands and Forestry, so that you, Sir, can scarcely rule me out on this—which says:—

"A Chara,

"The Minister for Lands wishes me to refer further to your representations on behalf of a number of persons in the Cahir area who claim their lands are seriously affected by flooding, due to forestry operations in the area and to state that it is regretted that the forestry division cannot accept liability for any such damage."

I have been in contact with the Minister for some time past on this matter, which has arisen in this way. Quite a lot of land has been planted along the Tipperary mountains, both the Galtees and the Knockmealdowns. These lands were drained in all cases and naturally a little stream flows down from the mountains, becoming bigger as it comes down. Burncourt is about three miles from the mountain foot and is planted. Very good work has been done, but it is little satisfaction for the farmers adjoining the mountain to know that their farms are destroyed every spring. That is hardly fair, as they pay rent and rates. They see these lovely trees growing and great employment given, but they do not benefit a tinker's curse. There is a definite responsibility on the Minister. If he denies it is for the Land Commission, are we to wait for arterial drainage? One must remember that "hope deferred maketh the heart sick." When the hundreds of acres there were drained, the silt was formed in the river as a result of the clay washed down and that has blocked the river. The houses are flooded. They were safe until the mountains were planted. Surely there is definite responsibility on the Minister for that and the complaint should be examined?

I could suggest a way out of it. Those are industrious men, and, if they took the case into the courts, they might be able to get an injunction against the Department. Of course, I have nothing to say against the Minister personally, as he and the staff of the Department have been most helpful in every way. In the city, one cannot build a house higher than one's neighbour's in such a way as to interfere with the light. There are other ancient rights, too, which must be protected, and something should be done in the case I have mentioned. I have always found the Minister to be a helpful gentleman, and think the tributes paid to the Department are well deserved. When you go in there, you know you are among friends. The Minister has set a very good example, and no one has been more helpful in the House than he, as a Minister. I will not go over the ground which has been ploughed, harrowed and rolled by the various Deputies, dealing with land division and bringing men from the East, South and North.

We all remember the old saying: "To hell or Connaught." There was a time when nothing was heard, from the Rock of Cashel to Kerry but the lowing of the beast, and the wild men came out from the woods. These people were driven "to hell or Connaught", and we owe a great tribute to Michael Davitt. I think it was T. D. Sullivan who said that Ireland was too small to be divided into counties. The State of Texas is many times larger than the whole of Ireland. Of course, we would not know our football championships only for the counties. They give a bit of amusement. There is good stuff in Cork, the best in Ireland, and they will survive when we are all wiped out. I envy the Minister when it comes to dividing 40,000 acres amongst 100,000 applicants—each will get half an acre. It was Johnny Pattison, the famous Irish clown, who said he was paid 1½d. a year and paid quarterly. May the Minister be successful in his work of land division.

Mr. Heskin

I would like to draw attention to the flooding caused owing to the defects in the embankments. The repairs and maintenance of embankments are, to my mind, the liability of the Land Commission. Since I have come here to this House as a representative of the people, I am particularly interested, because in our county we have a very big mileage of embankment. I suppose it was not possible to deal with it in the emergency period, as the staff was very limited, but I hope that in the near future the Minister will have gangs in various areas to carry out repairs to embankments that have deteriorated to such an extent that large tracts of very good grazing land adjacent to rivers are subject to flooding, both because of breaches in the embankments and because of tidal flooding.

I was in with the Land Commission even to-day because of the loss of 50 acres of good grazing land near Dungarvan. As we are facing a post-war period, grazing apart from tillage altogether is necessary, in order to produce our live stock and capture the market likely to present itself to us in the near future. By providing more grazing land, we will have much more land available for a tillage campaign. If the Minister cannot deal with the repair of the embankments, I hope he will pass it to some other Department to carry out the work. In one particular instance, I understand the Land Commission tried to get away from their responsibility for carrying out certain repairs. Where such repairs are carried out by the Land Commission, I think they should hold the responsibility for the maintenance of those embankments.

In connection with land division, we have heard a lot during the past few days. In certain areas where parcels of land are available for distribution, the first consideration should be given to the uneconomic holdings. It is quite likely that, in any particular area, such opportunities may not present themselves for years and years again. When the opportunity presents itself now, the uneconomic holdings should be made economic and should get the first consideration before new holdings are established.

Considerable discussion has surrounded the question as to what the size of a farm should be. That will depend to a great extent on the type of tenant who is selected for such a holding, and the area from which he has been taken. I always thought that a holding of 30 to 40 acres was a bit on the small side, because of the fact that the capital outlay in the matter of machinery and equipment is as much on the farm of 20 to 40 acres as it would be on a farm of 100 acres. We have to get horses, ploughs, harrows and other forms of equipment for the small farm as well as for the big one. The 20 to 40 acre farms will demand as much equipment as the 100 acre farm. I think, with the introduction of some type of co-operative system in the allocation and the operation of machinery on small holdings, you might overcome that difficulty. In the present age, with the introduction of different types of machinery, it is quite possible, where you have a small holding, that the outlay to carry on suitable husbandry can be overcome with less machinery. That would get over the major difficulty, or the economic difficulty, of maintaining the equipment that heretofore had to be maintained. Farms of 30 or 40 acres would be a suitable size provided you have a tenant willing and able to carry out the work.

I thought Deputy O'Donnell would have gone very extensively into one particular point. He is always looking for water. To-day I noticed he was trying to do away with water.

Mr. O'Donnell

I missed the tide yesterday, when they were discussing water supplies on the Public Health Bill.

Mr. Heskin

I should like the Minister to introduce a scheme under which water could be provided on Land Commission holdings. A lot of applications have been made for pumps. It would be a good thing if such a scheme were introduced on these holdings. It will be admitted that a water supply on such a holding is essential to increase production in every respect. You cannot carry on tillage operations unless you have manure and stock on the land to keep the fertility up to a reasonable standard.

There were many comments during the debate about the Land Commission letting land in conacre. Any man conversant with farming operations will know that the fertility of land after years of cropping is completely gone. Therefore, in land division, water should be provided. It is very essential for economic production on the holding and it will be needed for live stock and other general purposes. Even on existing Land Commission holdings, the cost might be added to the annuity or in some other way over a period of years. It is necessary that the land holders should have an adequate supply of water. Every farm in the country needs a water supply. There is nothing more essential in the production of milk and live stock. I hope the Government will see their way to introduce such a scheme. It is one of the most important things that could be introduced.

In connection with embankments, I hope the Minister will see that in the near future this work, which has lapsed for a number of years, will again be undertaken. Now that the emergency is over, his staff might be available to carry out inspections so that the various schemes may be carried out in a satisfactory manner.

Mr. Killilea

I want to lodge my little protest against the statement made by Deputy Corry here last night. Deputy Corry, seemingly, never understood, or tried to understand, the reasons why Davitt threw his whole weight into the Land League. I suppose we have in the West of Ireland the greatest land problem that has to be solved in any part of the country. I would like Deputy Corry to realise that when the fight against the landlords—and some of the landlords were tyrants—was on, our people in the West lived practically in a state of starvation and they hung on to their little hen-roosts, as he described them, while they had practically nothing more than potatoes and salt and perhaps a bit of carrageen to live on. Someone told me quite recently that if Deputy Corry acquainted himself with the position in Cork he would find there were over 10,000 small holdings there under, I believe, a £4 valuation. However, that is for the Cork Deputies and for Deputy Corry. I join in condemnation of any policy that would be contemplated on the basis of Deputy Corry's statement.

From time to time all of us have raised questions here regarding the acquisition of land, or the resumption of certain holdings. Recently, I had a number of such questions down. A number of the holdings in question are holdings where the worst type of husbandry has been carried out. The farmers who own them, if we can call them farmers, had to comply with the tillage regulations and, in order to do so, they bought a few stone of wheat, a few stone of barley or a few stone of oats, ploughed up an acre, threw the seeds into it, and that was all the tillage they did. I think the Land Commission have a big duty in that respect. If the Land Commission, even with the skeleton staff they had during the emergency—and most of their staff were on tillage during the emergency—kept their eyes open, they should be aware of where such farms were not properly tilled or where they were let to small land-owners in conacre at such ridiculous prices as £7 to £12 per acre. That was the position in my part of the country.

Deputy Corry and some other big land-owners in the Dáil are always quite prepared to tell us that tillage is not paying. I do not know that Deputy Corry comes under that heading as much as other people. If tillage does not pay us, when we have our land at 10/- an acre from the Land Commission, surely it cannot pay an unfortunate individual who has to put down £12 or £14 an acre for conacre?

I know of land that should be taken over by the Land Commission and divided amongst uneconomic holders. I know of one instance where there are three tenants, with valuations of 30/-, and the gentleman farmer who owns the place lives 12 or 14 miles away. That state of affairs should not be allowed to continue. I wish the Minister would tell the House why, during the emergency years, the staff did not prepare lists of land that it was proposed to acquire. They could also have prepared schemes for the division of land that has been on their books for many years. In my constituency the Land Commission has a number of farms which are let out in conacre and for which no schemes of division have been prepared. Now that the staff is back in the Department, I hope that that work will be speeded up. I am aware that people offered land to the Land Commission in exchange for holdings in the Midlands. Some people in the Midlands have a grievance against the type of migrant that was brought up there. Perhaps a certain amount of it is genuine. I know one man with 213 acres of land on which there is no house, who was prepared to give up his land if he got a holding elsewhere. I told him to put the offer in writing and to send it to the Land Commission. They have not yet met him to see what might be done about the matter. That man would be a good type to bring to the Midlands. I am sure he would be able to compete against the big farmers and others who have been "grousing" about some of the people who were brought to the Midlands.

A good deal of money has been spent on grants to enable people to reconstruct houses and, in some cases, to build new houses. After that was done in some places the Land Commission migrated people from certain townlands or villages. I do not see why a survey should not be made of such villages, with a view to seeing what the housing conditions were, and how far the Land Commission would be prepared to assist in improving the position, particularly where it was proposed to migrate people, so that the expense of building houses would not be incurred if they were to be changed. In a number of places people with 70 or 80 acres have been permitted to buy up as many small holdings as they wished to acquire. If that continues it will lead to the creation of ranches. A complete survey of that position should be made and permission to sell should not be given in such cases. If we are to deal with the division of land drastic steps will have to be taken. Drastic steps were already taken in some instances and the people are no better off. However, if uneconomic holdings are to be improved drastic steps are necessary. Deputy Heskin said that a decision should be come to as to what should be the size of an economic holding. I consider that size can only be determined by the amount of land available for distribution in a district. Whatever the size, the aim should be to improve the holdings and to bring about a position in which the people could live on them under better conditions.

A great hardship in many cases arises where there are arrears of annuities. I am aware of a case where two or three years' annuities were funded. Later the holding was sold and the purchaser had, as it were, to carry the baby, and to make up the amount due on the holding. If any arrears are funded they should not have to be paid by the incoming tenant but should be the responsibility of the person by whom the debt was incurred.

Mr. McMenamin

Surely the purchaser would know when he gets the requisition on title that there was an added burden on the land. Could he not adjust his price then?

Mr. Killilea

When people go to an auction they sometimes pay more than they intended to pay for an article. This is a matter that the Land Commission should look into, so that whatever might be due on a holding should be paid by the person who incurred the debt. I hope these matters will receive attention by the Land Commission. I conclude with the hope that the Land Commission will wake up and get a move on. The Department has been given a rest for the past five or six years, so that if there is a little spurt there now, I am sure it will not put it out of joint.

Mr. O'Leary

I have listened to Deputies talking about 20, 30 and 40-acre farms. The only thing that I am interested in is that, for those who are going to divide the land, the workers who are going to build these banks, the Minister will insert in any scheme that will be undertaken a fair wages clause because, at the moment, those working under the Land Commission, to my mind, have a starvation wage. That is one thing that has not been mentioned by any Deputy, so far. The workers dividing the land under the Land Commission should get a fair wage and, as a representative of the working classes, I ask the Minister not to overlook that.

Mr. Browne

As far as my part of the country is concerned, our grievance seems to be quite the reverse of that of Deputy O'Donnell. In parts of the county, the better part of the land is flooded. In the last 25 years the Land Commission drained all the bogs but they did not make any outlet from the bogs with the result that good portions of land adjoining fairly narrow streams and main rivers are flooded and the land is rendered practically useless for at least half the year. The serious part of it is that there is always danger that crops may be lost. If floods should occur at a time when the crop is about to be taken off the land, the crop is destroyed. If, in areas like North Mayo, a small farmer loses his crop, his prospects for that year are very poor.

The Land Commission certainly carried out a great deal of work in the acquisition and division of land in Mayo in the past 25 years. They made roads into the holdings but the roads were made on a grassy soft surface and practically no gravelled surface was made, with the result that there are practically no roads there now. It is impossible to use a horse and cart on them and almost impossible to walk on them. The Land Commission should undertake a special survey in connection with that matter and in connection with the question of flooding to which I have referred.

Deputy Corry made reference to the farmers of Mayo. I come from Mayo and I am proud to speak on behalf of the people of Mayo and to answer Deputy Corry. The farmers of Mayo stand up to their responsibilities as farmers as well as the farmers of Cork or any other county. If Deputy Corry or any other Deputy refers to the records of what the people of Mayo have done, he will discover that Mayo, having regard to its size, is able to compete with any other county. In regard to the number of pigs and eggs produced, Mayo will compare fairly well and will be very little behind Cork. That reflects credit on Mayo when one considers that the average valuation there is slightly over £7. When that is taken into consideration and when one estimates the quantity of pigs, bacon and eggs produced in Mayo as compared with any other county, I do not think Deputy Corry will be in a position to say very much to the farmers of Mayo.

I am perfectly satisfied that the Minister always wishes to be lenient and to treat everybody with fairness. That is my experience. On one occasion I made representations to him in regard to something concerning my constituency and I certainly say that the Minister met me very decently and fairly. I did not succeed in getting the concession I asked for. I was disappointed then and I am still disappointed. I refer to the complaint I made in connection with the acquisition of a small holding at Foxford. I would ask the Minister to reconsider that decision. I feel it is a decision that should be reconsidered. The Minister represents the farmers of the Twenty-Six Counties. He represents the farmers of Mayo and when he is replyin, on behalf of the people of Mayo, he should repudiate the statement that was made by Deputy Corry. The farmers of Mayo can compare with the farmers of any other county.

Mr. O'Driscoll

I have listened to a number of speeches on this Vote and all the Deputies who have spoken have a grievance of some kind against the Minister for Lands, but I think more of them have a bigger grievance against Deputy Martin Corry. It is only a few minutes ago since I parted from Deputy Corry in the Library, and he was delighted with himself. I think the Minister should be thankful to Deputy Corry because, of all the venom that was meant for the Minister, Deputy Corry has taken the greater part. All the Deputies who have spoken have some grievance or, at least, they imagine that they have. Naturally, I have a grievance also and, in putting that grievance before the Minister, I am sure he will give it due consideration. I come from West Cork, where the people are industrious and work hard, because the land there is so miserably poor that, if they did not work hard, they could never exist. I have heard Deputies talking about what an economic holding is. Some Deputies put it down at 30 acres. Others want to make it more. If a West Cork man had a 30-acre holding of fairly good land he would make a living anywhere. My grievance is that while the Minister knows well that there is a very big number of small-holders in West Cork whose holdings are uneconomic, very few of them who applied for land to the Land Commission have had their claims given any consideration. I should like to point out to the Minister and to the Land Commission officials who are present here, or to their advisers——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister is solely responsible.

Mr. O'Driscoll

I am aware of that, but it is no harm to give a tip to the others too. I should like to point out to the Minister, as he is responsible, although he stated some time ago that he was not responsible for selecting allottees—I think you are wrong now, Sir—or whoever else is responsible that, if there are allottees who have failed, it is because the right type of allottee was not selected.

Mr. O'Leary

By the Fianna Fáil clubs.

Mr. O'Driscoll

Whether Fianna Fáil or Fine Gael he is Irish. I do not care what a man's policy is so long as he is prepared to work for his country. I advise the Minister for Lands in selecting allottees in future to give due consideration to applications from West Cork. If these applicants are put down in Meath or Westmeath amongst a colony of migrants from many other parts of the country they will hold their place. Not alone will they hold their place, but they will show the other allottees how to work a farm. Not alone will they show the other allottees, but they will show the other farmers the right way to till land. When coming up to Dublin I can see plenty of good land that is neither tilled nor ploughed. If we had a little of that land in my part of the country, it would solve a lot of our difficulties. I would therefore like to impress on the Minister that he should give due consideration to applications from my part of the country for any parcels of land that he has to allot.

There are hundreds of young men in my part of the country trying to get across to England. So far back as I can remember the flower of our people have been going away to America, when they were able to go, and to England since. If these men could get land in their own country, they would work and till it. They would not have to be prosecuted as some landowners have been prosecuted recently. If the land which was parcelled out to others in recent years had been parcelled out to them the Minister would not have to bring in the Bill which he had to bring in lately.

Mr. Moylan

Deputy Corry has been so much the subject of discussion to-day——

Mr. O'Driscoll

That they forgot about you.

Mr. Moylan

——that Deputies almost forgot to discuss the Estimate before the House. Deputies Corry, Cafferky, Flanagan and Donnellan were so aggressive here and spoke so loudly that I felt like the Duke of Wellington; I did not know what effect they would have on the enemy, but, God knows, they terrified me. I am a timorous and quiet individual, and I could get on very well with Deputy O'Donnell from Tipperary. He speaks mildly and politely to me. Because he does so I should like to be very helpful to him in his constituency. At the same time, I think that altogether too much has been made of Deputy Corry's offence. I think that if Deputy Corry used the words he used rather in sympathy than in the aggressive tone he uses, there would not be half so much criticism directed towards him.

Deputy Hughes opened discussion on this Estimate by asking what land policy was. Deputies should be quite familiar with the history of land tenure and with the history of the land revolution which succeeded in placing the tillers of the soil in this country so securely on their holdings. Since 1923 Deputies have discussed in this House a number of Land Bills and the question of land policy arising out of the discussion of these Land Bills. Every year since 1923, on the occasion of bringing the Land Commission Estimate before the House, Deputies had the fullest opportunity, and they fully availed themselves of it when they had not Deputy Corry to talk about. Therefore, there is nobody in this House who should need to ask what land policy is. It has been described pretty often here as a social economic policy not directed to giving specific benefits to individuals, but to strengthen the social fabric of the nation. It seems to me that there is no real ignorance as to what land policy is. Everybody should know it.

The difficulty in regard to land policy is not so much any disapproval of it as enunciated, but rather the manner in which Deputies allege it has been administered. There is a specific regulation in regard to land division, which, of course, is considered as the most important point of Land Commission policy. In the division of an estate, the matter that is in the mind of the Land Commission is not merely dealing with the estate alone, but dealing with all the land economic difficulties in the particular district. It is the rule that employees on the estate shall have first preference for land, because compensation is due to them for their disemployment. It is the rule that local economic holders afterwards have first place, that migrants have next place, then evicted tenants, and, finally, landless men, and landless men only when all the other classes are satisfied.

I think Deputies would do well to try to keep in mind that the policy of the Land Commission is to try to create as many economic holdings as possible, to deal with congestion wherever it exists and to deal particularly with congestion in the scheduled congested counties where the evils of rundale still exist. I think it is a mistake to give land to landless men. I think there are enough people on the land and I dislike the idea of putting more people on the land. The business of the Land Commission is, so far as is humanly possible, to concentrate on the uneconomic holder in the first place, the man who lives in the vicinity of the estate about to be divided, and, when his claims are satisfied, on the migrant. I do not care where any migrant comes from anywhere in Ireland. There is a habit recently in this City of Dublin of organising Leitrimmen's Associations. Kerrymen's Associations and Wexfordmen's Associations.

Mr. Flanagan

And Corkmen's associations.

Mr. Moylan

And Corkmen's associations, but that did not succeed, because I hope Corkmen are better Irishmen than to permit themselves to be parochialised. I think that is ridiculous—the idea of dividing this country of ours into water-tight compartments. An Irishman, a citizen of this State, under the rules of the Land Commission, is entitled to be put into a holding in any county in Ireland, and it does not matter what opposition has to be met. The Land Commission have already met it and we will meet it again. I personally do not think much of the idea of giving land to employees of an estate. I do not think they make suitable land owners or workers. I have not seen them to be successful. I think it is a waste of land and I would prefer to compensate them for their disemployment in some other fashion.

Mr. D. Morrissey

I do not think the Minister can generalise on that. Some have been very successful.

Mr. Moylan

I cannot. Some have been successful.

Mr. D. Morrissey

You are condemning the lot.

Mr. Moylan

If I may risk being corrected again by Deputy Morrissey, while I am much more of a labour man than anything else, I disapprove entirely of the giving of small allotments of two or three acres to labourers or anybody else. I think it is a waste of land. I think it is a ridiculous idea, and we should, so far as possible, discontinue it.

There has been criticism of the people who have been selected for allotments by the Land Commission, and Deputies—not Deputies like Deputy Morrissey who has a long experience in the House, but many newcoming Deputies—have the habit of charging the Land Commission with selecting allottees for political reasons. That is completely untrue. In the selection of allottees, there are bound to be errors. In every organisation composed of human beings, errors are a natural phenomenon. The Land Commission acts in the selection of allottees definitely along the lines of a particular policy, without fear or favour or any bias, but the Fianna Fáil umbrellaman, Deputy Flanagan, has charged us time and again with selecting allottees merely for political reasons.

Mr. Flanagan

Not lately.

Mr. Moylan

He has alleged, and has continued to allege, that in the old days, when he was a member of a Fianna Fáil club in Mountmellick, no land could be divided in that constituency without the Land Commission inspector calling upon him. That is untrue and the innuendo that was inherent in Deputy Flanagan's statement last night was that I was afraid to refute his charge in his presence. This is the Dáil; this is the Parliament of the nation; and if a man, by innuendo or direct charge, reflects on a Department, it is his duty and his privilege to be here to hear the answer. Some Deputies have conducted themselves for the past few days in a manner which has brought no credit to the Parliament of this nation.

With regard to the land policy of the future, Deputy Bennett raised a particular question when he asked yesterday if it was not time for us to consider whether there should never again be any disturbance of the farmer, no matter what the size of his farm, who was performing his duty as a farmer— tilling his land and producing to the fullest extent on the farm. That gets us around eventually to the size of the holding. Very different views have been expressed as to what the ideal holding should be. My view is that the holdings should be of sizes diversified as much as possible, that we should have large holdings and small holdings, and that, except in exceptional circumstances, we should not have very large holdings and again, except in most exceptional circumstances, we should not have very small holdings. From my experience, I take the view that there should be nothing in the nature of what is called a standard holding. The more diversified they are, the more they become the complement of each other.

We are not market gardeners or horticulturists. Our job in the Land Commission is to create farms and to put farmers into them, and if the revolution which brought about security of tenure in this country was a wise one, if it is right to commemorate Davitt and the other men who brought that about, it is right that that security of tenure should be perpetuated and that a man should be able to go into the market and sell the farm which is his own—if he cannot do that, there is no security of tenure— irrespective of the size of the farm and irrespective of where it is. But there is, as we know, a certain amount of land speculation and the Dáil will have to make up its mind, the representatives of the people will have to decide how far such a scheme of things can be approved and how far such a scheme of things can be tolerated.

I know of cases where individuals have bought 10, 12 or 15 farms and it has been argued to me, and it is true, that those people are working them perfectly, and to the fullest extent. I hold the personal view that, even so, it is wrong that that land should be permitted to accumulate to that extent in the hands of individuals. The man who has purchased 15 farms because as a result of activities in another sphere he has been able to accumulate their price, has brought about what I consider to be economic eviction.

Deputy Corry mentioned that labourers in Cork would not accept a 30 acre farm from the Land Commission. One evil effect of Land Commission policy in the division and improvement of land very often is to depress the labourer and make his case infinitely worse than it was before any Land Commission activity took place. State expenditure has been undertaken to provide land for individuals arbitrarily selected. Very often the break up of the estate has created a certain amount of unemployment. Very often the small farmer is unable to offer the employment or the wages previously given to the labourer. The activities of the Land Commission along those lines have not been to raise the labourer's status and one of the difficulties I see is that it is very hard to provide an opportunity for an uneconomic labourer to raise himself in the economic scale.

I would ask the Dáil (not in any hurried or angry way, but calmly) to consider this question of speculation, to decide whether the representatives of the people approve of the accumulation of farm after farm in the hands of any single company or single individual. Let us all bear the brunt then of the policy that has to be created for either the destruction of the evil as we believe it to be or its approval as a good thing if we so believe it to be.

The English people have a great flair for archæology; they dug up the bones of Cromwell once. Many members of the Dáil have been constantly engaged here in Ireland, as archæologists, digging up his bones again. Cromwell must have been an amazing man. He had a wonderful progeny; his sons are numbered by the thousand in this country. Strangely enough, Deputy Commons, in talking about Cromwell last evening, made a historical slip. He suggested that the I.R.A. in 1920 were engaged in cattle-driving. I know what the I.R.A. were doing in 1920-21; they were engaged in an unselfish struggle for the freedom of this country. An attempt was made by many selfish people in many areas to cash in on the work of the I.R.A., and in Mayo and in many parts of the West attempts were made to cover up, under the idea that it was I.R.A. activity, the work of people who wanted something for themselves and did not give a damn about the nation. I remember very well a discussion by I.R.A. headquarters officers on the question of cleaning up the cattle-drivers in County Mayo—and they were cleaned up by the I.R.A., and by the County Mayo I.R.A.

Deputy Commons also mentioned Cong forestry. The difficulty there, again, is that every Deputy wants the development of forestry, but it is like the ploughing for wheat some years ago—they want it in some other Deputy's constituency. There may be, among the existing woodlands of Cong, a patch of arable land here and there, but the layout is such that it seems to me, up to date, without having a close examination into the matter, that it would be far better for the national economy if the whole place were afforested. However, I am looking into that estate and will communicate with the various Deputies on different sides of the House who have taken up the attitude that Deputy Commons has taken.

Deputy Commons also mentioned a 500-acre estate in Mayo. I do not know if representations have been made to the Land Commission in regard to it, but if there is a farm of 500 acres in Mayo that it is possible for the Land Commission to acquire— considering the tremendous rundale difficulties in Mayo—I would be glad to hear of it.

I am glad to know that another aggressive Mayo man, Deputy Cafferky, has been reading my speeches. Even if I say it myself, my speeches would be good for him. While he read them and saw their purport, I am afraid they did not do him any good.

I suggest that what is wanted from the Opposition is constructive criticism. Deputy Cafferky produced a lot of heat and a lot of sound, but no light. The only criticism he had to offer of the Land Commission is that it had no foresight because it did not import in 1939 sufficient timber to carry us on, possibly until 1950. I think the Government showed a good deal of foresight in 1938 and in 1939 by the creation of the Department of Supplies. To the work of the Department of Supplies is due the fact that we have come through economically, in many ways, the difficulties that existed during the past six years. But there is no good in any Deputy advocating illegalities. I think it is a very foolish thing. It is a wrong thing in Parliament for men who come here as legislators to advocate illegal action. They are here to make the law, not to advocate its breaking.

If any man from another country was in the House during the debate on this Estimate, any intelligent, fair-minded man, he would find it very difficult to decide what Land Commission policy should really be, in view of the complexity of ideas, opposing ideas, enunciated by various Deputies. It is difficult, well-nigh impossible, to please everybody. The Land Commission has a very difficult job to do and if it goes along the lines of acceding to the demands of certain Deputies, then the ideas of other Deputies must be left high and dry. Deputy Browne wants roads repaired by the Land Commission and I think other Deputies mentioned the repair of roads, too. It is not the function of the Land Commission to repair these roads. The Land Commission has divided the lands, has made roads which are regarded as suitable, has made them as well as possible, and it is up to the tenants to keep these roads in reasonable repair. Otherwise, it is the duty of the tenant to go along to the county council and strive to get these repairs carried out.

Why the Land Commission should be asked to be a permanent fairy godmother to every allottee it creates, passes my understanding. If we have to do that, then we certainly must do it at the expense of the allottees yet unplaced. If we are to contemplate expenditure in one place, we cannot develop in the other. The Land Commission has been accused of bad husbandry. Again, the Land Commission was in a very difficult position here. It had lands on hands; it had to deal with those lands in order to get in line with Government policy in relation to the production of food. The Land Commission, in 1942, tilled 51½ per cent. of the lands on hands; in 1943 it tilled 49 per cent. of its lands; in 1944 it tilled 48 per cent. and in 1945 it tilled 39 per cent. And this was the cause, we are told, of creating infertility in the land, of taking the heart out of it or, as Deputy Corry said, taking the body out of it, when he was referring to hen roosts.

Deputies speak as if the Land Commission had one particular farm and continued to till it in that fashion for six years. During the six years, 108,000 acres were distributed amongst 7,000 odd allottees. In 1939, when we started, we had something over 50,000 or 60,000 acres. We have 40,000 now and much of that has been acquired within the last few years. Therefore, the land that the Land Commission took the heart out of has been passing away year after year from the Land Commission and, if we have created a difficulty for the incoming allottee, I am sure the Land Commission will make every effort to be helpful to that incoming allottee.

Mr. Hughes

How?

Mr. Moylan

Some Deputies suggested that, along with giving land to an allottee, we should give him a cash bonus of £200. This—Deputy O'Donnell will know the old Tipperary saying—would be putting another hump on Jack Madden. I, as a boy, disagreed with the Bible. I could never see why the poor should always be with us and I could never understand the phrase "To him that hath shall be given." But those old boys who wrote the Bible were wiser than I. They were no perfectionists. They knew that men and things should be treated as we find them. In the division of land, in pursuit of a social economic policy, we provide property to the value of £500 to £1,000, and surely we must expect from the man who is the recipient of such a magnificent gift, that he will be in a position to make the farm, the homestead, offered him a going concern? I think it is ridiculous to suggest in these days that we should go around to seek men who have no possibility at all of making a success of land.

We cannot give £200, £300 or any sum. If we give a loan to a man who has got land of that nature we are putting a millstone round his neck. He would be better off never to have got a loan. Embankments have been mentioned by many Deputies. The question of embankments has been gone into in the Dáil time and again. Deputy Browne suggested that the Land Commission cannot evade its responsibility there. The Land Commission is not trying to evade its responsibility. The Deputy should know that in most cases where a question about embankments arises, the tenants know that, in nearly all cases, trust funds have been set aside to meet the difficulty brought about by the creation of breaches in embankments. The Land Commission even stepped outside its commitments in many cases, and where it was found that expenditure would be rewarded by good results, have taken on such expenditure for the benefit of farmers affected by breaches in embankments. I will not generalise about any particular embankments that are troubling the consciences of Deputies, but if they submit such cases to me, I will have them examined and tell them whether there is or is not an opportunity to deal with them, or whether it is not the responsibility of the Land Commission.

Mr. McMenamin

The Minister is aware that there are no trust funds now.

Mr. Moylan

The Minister has no such information. Deputy Morrissey was very kind to me. He asked if there was a time lag between the acquisition of an estate and its division. In the Land Commission we think that such a time lag is quite undesirable. Before the emergency it was not unusual, on the day that the Land Commission walked into possession of an estate, to have a scheme prepared and the land divided on the same day. A difficulty arose during the past six years. Owing to having very few inspectors, and very few supporting troops behind them, as well as a shortage of building materials and other difficulties it was impossible to divide acquired estates swiftly. Deputies can be assured that that delay will now be obviated as far as possible.

Another matter dealt with was in connection with vesting. It would be a great matter for the Land Commission that vesting should take place immediately. It would take a good deal of work off the shoulders of the Land Commission, but, in view of the fact that I had recently to bring in a Land Bill, to deal with tenants who have not done their duty, it seems to me that the decision to have a period of probation imposed before vesting is a very wise one. As I pointed out in my opening remarks on this Estimate, we have speeded up vesting a good deal during the past year. We have created a new section in the Department, and have speeded up vesting three times quicker than in the past, and it should be possible to speed it up further in the coming year.

I should like to say to Deputies Beirne and Killilea that under the 1933 Act all arrears, over three years, were forgiven tenants and the three years' arrears were refunded. The charges in Deputy Beirne's case were quite reasonable. There is such a thing as compound interest. This is a loan of so much money over a long period and the Government acted equitably in the case of bad tenants owing arrears over three years in funding them. No real burden is being placed on tenants.

In regard to Deputy Killilea's suggestion I do not understand his system of logic. Because a man did not pay his annuities he was given a gift in 1933 by having three years' arrears funded and the rest of the arrears completely wiped out. Every man going into a market to buy a farm is told exactly the burdens that are on the farm and he knows what he is buying. He fixes his price according to the value of the land and the burden imposed on it. If he foolishly makes a bad bargain why ask the Land Commission to remove the burden which he accepted as part of his contract with the seller? That could not be done and should not be done. I promised Deputy O'Donnell who has always been kind to me that I would go to County Tipperary to examine certain matters that are creating trouble in the Galtees and Knockmealdown. There are several rugged streams down by the Galtees. They might be in Kerry. I gravely doubt if it is the operations of the Forestry Department have created trouble in these streams. I must go there as the Mayor of Cork went at one time to Tipperary "infra dig” because if I do not go there will be a good deal of trouble. I think I have recently answered all questions that were put to me and there are hardly any arguments that have not been fairly met. I again suggest that charges about there being a political basis for the selection of allottees should no longer be made.

Mr. Flanagan

What about Deputy Beirne's case?

Mr. Moylan

That does not concern this particular Estimate. I want to say that as long as any Deputy remains a member of this House he need expect no personal concession from me. There are not and never have been any politics in the Land Commission. The Department is completely free in regard to the acquisition and division of land and in the selection of allottees from the authority of the Minister, and when a Deputy charges the Minister or his Party or the Government with malfeasance in office he is making a definite attack on civil servants who are doing their duty to this country under tremendous difficulties.

Mr. Spring

Is there any possibility of dealing with Fenit Island?

Mr. Moylan

The Deputy ought to write to me and give me the facts about it.

Vote put and agreed to.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.

The Dáil adjourned at 10.30 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Friday.