I move:—
That it is expedient that a tribunal be set up with power to send for persons, papers and records to inquire into and report on the work of the Land Commission in regard to the following matters:—
(1) The method of selection of allottees;
(2) The standard of living attained by those to whom allotments have been granted;
(3) The size and nature of the minimum holding which, as a result of experience, can be regarded as economic, and
(4) The extent to which allottees have failed to make good and the reasons for such failure.
I want to remind the House that this motion was tabled following a statement by the Minister on the Second Stage of the Land Bill early this year. As reported in column 294, Vol. 99 of the Debates for the 31st January last the Minister stated:
It was not until the year 1938 that the Land Commission found it possible to have special inspections made to ascertain how allottees were using their parcels—and then the investigation was only partial and occasional.
Up to the year 1944, over 4,200 allotted parcels had been inspected for usership and it was found that some 200 were badly worked and some 700 sublet in whole or in part— that is to say, in 21½ per cent. of the parcels investigated the allottees were not then properly fulfilling their obligations. It was also found that some 820 houses built by the Land Commission for allottees were either unoccupied or sublet to other persons. Subsequent investigation, however, showed that the warning letters issued by the Land Commission had a salutary effect in a large number of cases and a great improvement was effected.
In the year 1944 it was decided to set up a special section of the Land Commission staff to deal with investigation for usership, and since then inspection has proceeded in a most systematic way. Including some re-inspections in cases already brought to notice by previous investigation, nearly 4,000 holdings and parcels have been inspected for usership during the past year, and of these some 700 were found unsatisfactory— 17½ per cent. Sixty-nine of some 1,250 houses on holdings covered by this inspection were found to be unoccupied. Outside this systematic inspection, some 400 additional cases of non-residence and 450 cases of unsatisfactory user have been brought to notice individually, making a total of 1,150 unsatisfactory user and 470 non-residence cases disclosed so far."
Both Deputy Coogan and myself felt at the time that that was an indictment of the work of the Minister's Department and definitely called into ques- tion the whole policy in operation here regarding land settlement. It will be appreciated that the Land Commission was brought into existence for a specific purpose — the purpose of land settlement, to take over land under the various Acts from the landlords, to have that land re-vested in the tenant farmers, and to tackle, on the other hand, the problem of congestion, work which, prior to the creation of the Land Commission, was operated in the west of Ireland by the Congested Districts Board. They were further charged with the responsibility of dealing with the large number of uneconomic holdings we have in the country, in so far as it was possible to deal with them, having regard to the limited amount of land available for the purpose. The problem has been ameliorated to a considerable extent but the policy has been in operation for a long period now. So far as the national Government is concerned, it has been in operation for a period of 25 years. I submit that, in view of the condition of things clearly set out in the Minister's statement, I am entitled to ask, and the House is entitled to press for, a full investigation as to whether the present policy is serving the national interest.
It must be appreciated that the disposition and the utilisation of the land of the country are of fundamental importance to the whole economic structure of the State. The disposition of land, the size of holdings, the possibility of the tenant being placed in the best position to utilise his land to the best advantage, not merely in his own interest but in the national interest, are matters with which we in this House should be deeply concerned. I have no doubt the Minister has given very full consideration to this whole question since he was charged with the administration of this important Department, but I say that the attitude of economists the world over, the experience of the world during the war years, and the condition of the world so far as the provision of food for the people is concerned, bring more clearly to our minds the necessity and the vital importance of ensuring that the land of this country is utilised to the best advantage in the national interest, that it is disposed, tenanted and held by the technicians, if you like to apply that term to the farming community, who use it in the national interest and that they are placed to the best advantage, taking all the circumstances into account. If we are pursuing a policy at present which is not giving the desired results, I suggest that we should correct it, that an examination is necessary, and even if an adjustment in our policy is not necessary as a result of that investigation, we will have got some good result because we will be able to satisfy ourselves that the land settlement policy we are pursuing is the best policy within the very limited sphere of the Department's activities.
On this matter of land, I want to direct the Minister's attention to the national farm survey the British Government have made. They have carried out a complete survey of all the agricultural land of Great Britain and Wales and have compiled an enormous amount of very valuable information. It would be very wise if we carried out the same type of survey here, but that is not the responsibility of the Minister for Lands, although it might be difficult to say definitely how far the Minister's responsibility goes and where one would draw the line as between his responsibility and that of the Minister for Agriculture.
The sort of detail they have got from that survey in Great Britain is classified under various headings, such as holdings and occupiers, farms and farmers, tenure, rent, length of occupation, layout and situation of holding, condition of farm houses and farm buildings, number and condition of farm cottages, type and natural fertility of soil, managerial efficiency of occupiers, condition of cultivated land and use of manures, area of derelict land, water supply, electricity, etc. The British Government felt it was essential to have information of that sort regarding agricultural holdings, and I am merely stressing here that this House is entitled to ask, after 25 years, that we should have a very full investigation into the whole work of the Department, that we cannot pass over the conditions the Minister has referred to and the problems he has brought before the House regarding bad husbandry, conacring and subletting, failure to occupy holdings and so on, as well as the very high percentages of 21 and 17½ to which he referred.
The Minister will probably tell us that he is carrying out an investigation at present, but I am not satisfied with that investigation. He told us, as a matter of fact, in his speech on the Land Bill, that investigations were being pursued, that, up to 1938, the Land Commission was very busy and had not had the time or the opportunity to pursue independent and systematic investigations, and I have no doubt that, since that time, certain limited investigations have taken place. No doubt, the Minister will tell us that these investigations are continuing and that the warnings issued by his Department have had a salutary effect and have resulted in some improvement. I feel that that is not sufficient because it appears to me that a man can scarcely investigate his own work in a detached way and satisfy himself that his own work has been very well done, and we cannot rely on the Department carrying out an investigation and satisfying itself that the work has been very well done.
I feel that, after 25 years of the operation of a policy of land division, the whole method of selection of allottees, the results obtained so far as a standard of living of the allottees is concerned, the size and nature of the minimum holding which might be regarded as an economic holding, the extent to which allottees have failed to make good — and we have some information from the Minister on that — and the reasons why they have failed to make good, should be examined. I do not think the Land Commission are the right people to make that examination. I submit that an impartial tribunal should be set up before which the public would have the right to express their views and give information, and before which officials of the Land Commission, inspectors, commissioners and so on, would be called to give evidence.
It is most essential that we should carry out this work because, in the last analysis, we all live out of the land. Almost 100 per cent. of the national income comes, either directly or indirectly, from the land, so that it is of fundamental importance to our whole economy that the land should be utilised to the best advantage and that, if we have been making any mistakes, they be corrected and adjusted in the light of the experience of 25 years. We have reached the end of a period. During the emergency, Land Commission activities in the matter of the acquisition and division of land were slowed up, but the Minister probably contemplates new activities in the near future.
I submit that this motion is most opportune because we are entering on a new period, and, before we enter on that new period and continue the policy in operation for 25 years, we should examine our consciences and have a full and impartial investigation of the Department's work. Very considerable amounts of State finances have been expended on this work and we want to find out what results have accrued to the nation from that expenditure. We have to find out whether we are, in fact, creating agricultural slums because the unit which the Land Commission feel is an economic unit has not given an opportunity to the individual to work out a decent standard of living for himself and his family.
We had a long discussion on this matter on the Land Bill last year and most of us expressed the view that we had no use for the people who failed, that those allottees who were not doing their job, who failed to fulfil the conditions of their contracts, would have to go. I put it to the Minister that we must be just above all. It is quite possible that we gave a job of work to individual allottees that could not be carried out successfully because of the conditions, because their activities were limited by the small holding which was considered economic by a man sitting in Merrion Street.
It is all right to be an armchair economist or agriculturist; it is quite a different job to put theory into practice. I have more respect for the practical man who has gone through the hard school of experience; who has demonstated his capacity to live on a very small holding. I have great respect for people who are able to do that. The majority of Deputies, because of their rural outlook, have great admiration for the man who is able to raise a large family on a small holding and to make ends meet. He is limited in every direction. He has to be extremely cautious. He has to be an excellent financier, in my opinion, and a keener judge than the man with a bigger holding who, if he makes mistakes, can afford to make them. The man with the very limited holding and with family commitments cannot afford to make any mistake. If he makes a mistake, the reactions and the repercussions last for a considerable time.
From a social and economic point of view, I hope the Minister will accept this motion as being moved in a spirit of co-operation and anxiety to help, so far as we can in this House, the activities of the Department over which he presides. I do not want to be critical. I do not want to point to the failures of the Department in the selection of allottees, because it is inevitable in a work of that kind that there will be a certain number of failures. But is it not reasonable to say that the percentage of failures is too high? I think the Minister will agree with me that that high percentage of failures calls for inquiry. From the fact that an inquiry has been going on inside the Department it is obvious that the Minister and the Department felt that investigation was necessary. But, on the bigger aspect of this whole matter, outside the mere question of individual success or failure, we suggest that the time is opportune for a tribunal to investigate this whole question of land policy from the point of view of doing good to the individuals concerned and to the community as a whole and seeing whether it is necessary to have an adjustment or alteration in the regulations and policy that dictate and control the activities and the machinery of the Land Commission.
I do not want to labour it any more than that. The terms of the resolution speak for themselves. The Minister is a reasonable man and, from what I have heard from him, he has a modern outlook on this matter. He is possibly more realistic than some other man might be in the same office. Therefore, I feel that it is possible that we may succeed in impressing on the Minister the importance of this matter to the whole economy of the country.
