When I moved to report progress in this matter I had very nearly exhausted what I had to say. Before I conclude, however, I would ask the Minister to try and take the question of the solution of land division completely out of a yearly budgetary consideration at a very early opportunity and to take what powers he feels are necessary to deal with this problem on the basis I suggest. It will not be impossible to find a suitable type of legislation to give him those powers. Three things are needed and needed quickly. First of all it is necessary to ascertain, once and for all in a comprehensive way, what land in this country is available for acquisition and ultimate division. The next thing is to find out what it is going to cost and, thirdly, it will be necessary to find a simple statutory way by which you can make title to all this land good and not to allow whatever process of law may arise in the distribution of the purchase money to impede the progress of the actual division of land. May I say to the Minister that it is gratifying to know that he has in some way been able to step up land division? I do feel earnestly and sincerely, however, that unless he can find some substitute for this creaking, archaic and rapidly decaying Land Commission the problem will remain one for years and years to come.
Committee on Finance - Vote 52—Lands (Resumed)
When the Minister was introducing this Estimate last Thursday we were all expecting to hear a general statement setting out his policy, an explanation regarding his stewardship and some details of what were his achievements since he took office. We who represent congested districts expected to hear what progress was being made to relieve the congestion which we were hoping would be relieved as soon as possible. The Minister's statement, however, was barren in all those subjects. When we look over the Estimates of the last three years and compare them with speeches delivered by the Minister when he was Deputy Blowick sitting on this side of the House, I feel that we are all entitled to express surprise that a greater effort has not been made by him in the direction of pushing the Land Commission a little faster and of getting the Minister for Finance to give him a little more money for the purpose of dealing with this whole question of land division more speedily than it is being dealt with at the present time.
In the year 1947-48 we find the expenditure was £1,420,150. That was a time when the Land Commission were not able to get into their stride because staffs were only being collected from the different Departments to which they were loaned during the emergency and a kind of reorganisation was taking place. In the year 1948-49 we had £1,422,890 expended. In the year 1949-50 we have £1,530,050, or £107,160 more than the previous year, being spent. The sum of money which is made available this year is, I may say, nothing short of a shock to most of us.
When the Minister was speaking, as I said a moment ago, on this side of the House on the Land Commission Estimate as reported in column 2182 of Volume 105, he said:—
"National drainage or other problems would not take half or quarter or one-tenth of the money that the land question would take if it were to be properly solved.... Instead of asking £1,140,000, it would be far better business if the Minister asked for £7,000,000 and kept doing so for the next eight or ten years. Then an end of the problem would be in sight."
When Deputy Blowick, as he then was, was making that statement, he was not making it just as a back-bencher or as a person who would not have a lot of responsibility. He was making it as the Leader of a Party. Again there may be Parties in this House whose Leaders may be entitled to make wild statements, but he happened to be representing himself as Leader of a Farmers' Party, as the Leader of Clann na Talmhan, who made the claim, rightly or wrongly, that they were sent here by congests from the West of Ireland, as well as other classes of farmers, to ventilate their views on Land Commission work. When he made the statement that I have just quoted, he made it I would say after giving the matter careful consideration.
I find on looking up the records of the House that on another occasion when the Minister, then Deputy Blowick, was speaking here as reported in column 2143, Volume 105, he said:—
"He (the then Minister) is asking the House to-day for a sum that is slightly short of £1,500,000 for his Department. In my opinion that sum is completely inadequate if any genuine effort is to be made to settle the land question."
We have quite a number of lengthy statements made by Deputy Blowick, as he then was, Leader of the Clann na Talmhan Party, criticising the Minister who had been trying to get together the staff that had been dispersed through the different Departments during the emergency. He was advocating, not just merely some slight increase to deal with the question of land division, but a sum of no less than £7,000,000 in order that the Minister might go ahead speedily with the work. All the staff lent to the different Departments during the emergency are now back and the Minister is in a position to go full blast. Furthermore, the Minister has sitting opposite him now on these benches, an Opposition who are prepared to back him whole hog in order that he may deal with the problem of congestion as speedily as possible. We are all asking ourselves why it is that he has made no effort to try to give effect to the statements made by him in days gone by.
I could understand the economy axe of the Minister for Finance falling heavily on sections of different Departments but we have noticed that the axe this year has fallen not on expenditure within the Departments themselves but rather on social services. In my view, the Leader of Clann na Talmhan could put this Government at any time on the high road by simply saying to the Minister for Finance: "If you are not prepared to put up an additional sum of money to help me to keep in line with statements I made in days gone by, my Party and I will be prepared to enforce the bargain you made when you gave us certain office in order to set up the present Government. My Party and I are anxious to show to the people we represent, the farmers and the congests in the West of Ireland, that we are interested in giving effect to the things we thought should be done in order to speed up land division." Apparently the Minister is afraid of the sharp edge of Deputy McGilligan's axe and he was not prepared to face up to the question of land division as most people here expected he might.
When the Minister, again as Deputy Blowick, was speaking on that Estimate, he said: "I wonder is the failure to deal with the question of land division with sufficient speed due to the inactivity of the Minister for Lands? I wonder is he taking his office in a too lackadaisical fashion in not demanding sufficient money for his Department"—in not doing the things that the Minister said he would be prepared to urge should be done, if he ever got into the position of a driving force at the back of the Government. The Minister, again speaking at that time, said:
"At the present rate of progress the Land Commission would not have the land question settled for the next 120 years. That is a very glaring state of affairs for a responsible Government Department. They seem to be in the position of a person with his hands tied behind his back."
The Minister cannot say that he is a man with his hands tied behind his back because at the moment he is in a position to stand up to the Government and say: "If you are not prepared to make money available for the division of land, in accordance with my wishes and the desires of my Party, we are prepared to make you leave the benches you are now sitting in or to face the country on this particular question." Of course, the Minister is like other Ministers, Parliamentary Secretaries and people in responsible positions. When they go out to the country they make one type of statement and when they come back to this House they are not prepared to give effect to that type of statement. When speaking to the Cork Farmers' Association, the Minister, as reported in the Irish Times of February 28th, said:
"It was the policy of the Government to eliminate congestion and to place the largest number of families on economic holdings and he hoped the Land Commission would complete its task within the next five or six years."
I ask the Minister again if there is any hope of the Land Commission finishing its task if he is prepared to put up only £107,070 in addition to the Estimate of the year before last.
What is the figure?
You increased it this year.
And the figure is?
£107,070.
An increase.
You thought I would not be able to give the figure.
That would not surprise me a bit.
The Minister, I mean, with the intelligent Parliamentary Secretary beside him.
Figures are dangerous sometimes.
I know people who can twist them when they want to. I quote that to show that, when the Minister is speaking outside the House, and particularly when speaking in a county where congestion is not as acute as it is in the West, he is prepared to make a statement that he will not be called upon to stand over but which he hope will go down with some people, while he is prepared, on the other hand, to sit in his office and look on without taking any serious notice.
The Minister, last year when introducing his Estimate, told us there was no pool of land in the midland or eastern counties from which he could draw for the purpose of placing congests. Taking the Minister pretty seriously, or at least expecting that he might make an effort to fulfil some of the promises he made, I put down a question yesterday with a view to finding out if he had created any pool since then, and I find that there is still no pool, and I suppose the reply given to me would be the same as I would have got the year before or the year before that—that the Land Commission were proceeding to do certain things. The trouble is that when we ask questions in relation to the Land Commission which involve many items which concern our constituencies, we find that something is always about to be done but rarely do we find a lot being done. I am not one of those who make these statements merely because I sit on these benches. Since I came into this House over 21 years ago, I have every year impressed on every Minister, whether Fianna Fail, Fine Gael or Cumann na nGaedheal, in common with a number of my colleagues and other Deputies, the importance of trying to get this land congestion problem settled as speedily as possible. As I have said, I asked the Minister a question about this pool. The question I put was:
"If he would state the amount of land acquired in the midland and eastern counties for the provision of migrants' holdings, allotments, etc., since the removal of the close-down Order."
The Minister's reply was:
"The best I can do for the Deputy is to tell him that, since the restrictions were removed, the Land Comsion have inspected over 5,000 acres in the five counties which I think he has in mind and have started acquisition proceedings for over 3,000 acres. Later in the year, we shall see the results in the taking of the actual possession."
I suggest that no special effort is being made by the Minister who so severely criticised his predecessor in days gone by to speed up a solution of the congestion problem.
In the past couple of years when this Estimate was introduced either by a Fianna Fail Minister or by the present Minister, I tried to point out something which I thought should have the attention of the Land Commission. We had, during the emergency, a number of large farmers who were not prepared to work their lands on the basis of good or even fairly useful husbandry. They were only prepared to let the worse land they had in conacre to some unfortunates who were prepared to take it in an effort to make a few shillings out of it. We had others who would have preferred to go into court rather than till their land. During those years, I thought that whatever skeleton staff was left in the Land Commission—I think that even to-day the Land Commission should be in a position to go into this in greater detail—should have got after that type of farmer, the type of farmer who was not prepared to help in the production of food, and should have seen to it that the land was worked properly at a time when the people had no other source of food. If ever we have to face a similar emergency, I think those people should be relieved of the land. Whatever compensation would have to be paid, it would be much better to have them out of it, to have the land taken over and given to people who are prepared to work it and to produce food. No effort in that direction was made, however, and I do not think the Minister is interested in making any effort either.
Looking over the debates in connection with the acquisition of lands, I always like to have a peep at what was said in the past by those who are now responsible Ministers in the present administration, to see if they might be prepared to follow up their statements of days gone by and try to bring pressure on the Government to speed up land division. In Volume 106, column 138, of the Official Debates, I notice that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance, who was then Deputy Donnellan, referred to some holdings in North Galway which he said should have been taken over by the Land Commission. I have questioned a number of people recently and find that no further steps have been taken. As a matter of fact, since he became Parliamentary Secretary he must have fallen asleep and forgotten about the congests in the west of Ireland.
I think that is not correct. The Deputy's county got a better share of what was going last year than most counties.
Is the Minister asking me to prove this?
No, I am just pointing out a fact. If what I am saying is wrong, point out the error.
I am pointing out that no move has been made in connection with a number of farms that Deputy Donnellan was asking questions then. There are lands at a place called Massmore outside Tuam, about which I put a question to the Minister yesterday. Deputy Donnellan told the people in the locality that he was deeply interested in that question, but the answer I got yesterday about those lands was that the Land Commission do not propose to take any action in connection with them. Therefore, pressure from the Parliamentary Secretary does not seem to be too strong, or else it does not weigh too heavily with the Minister for Lands, although from the statements he makes from Sunday to Sunday outside church gates one would imagine all he had to do was wave a magic wand and all the things would be done overnight. The Parliamentary Secretary, in his usual cute way, of course, started off, when he was going to chastise the previous Minister, by saying that "Undoubtedly the Minister, Deputy Moylan, is the best Minister in this House, in my opinion," and then he started to ridicule him—but that is quite in keeping with statements made by people on that side of the House.
Deputy Donnellan's views at that time, as he expressed them, were:—
"I think the Land Commission as it exists at present should be abolished. The only work they seem to be doing is collecting the land annuities."
I wonder if there is anything in the present Minister's Estimate or in his statement—I suppose it was the shortest statement ever made by a Minister for Lands here—to show that there is anything that has been done since the present Government took office to make him change his mind. I fail to see anything but a lot of talk, as is the case with all Ministers sitting on those benches opposite.
On many occasions we have had to criticise the Land Commission severely because of the particular type of road they build when they are dividing a farm. Usually it is only the width of a cart, about 10 or 11 foot, and at a later stage, if any effort is made by a local authority to take that land over, there is always the question of compulsory acquisition, and county councils are usually very slow to use compulsory powers to take over land for roads.
I would also like to know if the Minister would be prepared to have the Land Commission increase the advances to people who are building houses under the local government grants. The Land Commission usually gives a grant of two or three times the annuity on the land—the previous figure was, I think, a sum not exceeding £80. With the way building materials have gone up, it would be very useful if the Minister would consider increasing these advances.
I have one other complaint to make. During the last few months some Land Commission gangers in my county have been laid off work. The least one might expect is that, if there were any work starting in any Department that would be employing gangers, preference would be given to those laid off Land Commission or county council work. I find, however, that that is not the case. Gangers have been employed by another Department who have no experience at all of that particular type of work. The Minister should impress on other Departments that the Land Commission gangers laid off, the vast majority of whom are men quite capable of undertaking any type of work in rural Ireland, should be given preference in the future. We have had gangers appointed who have had no experience in the world, not merely of being gangers but of being workers in any scheme on the roads or anywhere else. It is not too much to ask the Minister to see that preference is given to those who were laid off and whose names were put on the list of unemployed, giving them the option of looking for the dole or taking the boat, as thousands of others are doing at present.
I sincerely hope that when we come to consider the Land Commission Estimate in a year from now an effort will be made to speed up land division, and that when the Minister is introducing his Estimate in future it will be the type of Estimate that he himself at one time expected that he would see, that is, an Estimate with not merely a slight increase of about one-sixth of a million but an increase of the £6,000,000 or £7,000,000 that he talked about. I shall not go into all the questions that from week to week I have been raising in connection with the acquisition of certain lands in my constituency, but I sincerely hope that the representations I have made in connection with all those lands will be taken a bit more seriously by the Land Commission. I also hope that the new secretary who has been appointed in the Land Commission will make a little more effort to reply to Deputies——
The Minister is responsible, not civil servants.
I sincerely hope that the Minister will see to it that communications addressed by Deputies to his Department or representations made will receive more satisfactory replies in future than they have been getting in the past.
During the period of the emergency the majority of the young men and women who left my constituency to look for a livelihood in another country left the towns and villages, the cause being that industrial activity in the towns concerned was either closed down or slowed down as a result of the shortage of raw material. For the past two years I notice from whatever information we can gather that the tendency is in the other direction and that any emigration that has taken place from my constituency is mainly from the rural areas. I regret that and I am sure the Minister regrets it more than I do. I urge upon him in that connection that everything possible should be done to speed up the acquisition and division of the remainder of the untenanted land in that area for the purpose of keeping our people at home. No better work could be done for the country as a whole than to divide up the remainder of the untenanted land, thereby giving an opportunity to the rising generation to produce more food. That should be done within a reasonable period.
Shortly after his appointment, the Minister for Lands conferred the honour on my constituency of visiting the two principal towns therein and met organised bodies representing smallholders, cottage tenants, Old I.R.A. and other people who would, in my opinion, work land to the best possible advantage if given an opportunity. The Minister, therefore, knows the problem in that area nearly as well as I know it.
Since the passing of the 1923 Act, I can truthfully and sincerely say that I have listened to the annual review of the work of the Land Commission in this House and I have heard Deputies on different sides of the House, irrespective of the Government that was in office, make the same complaints and the same suggestions. One of the most surprising statements made during this discussion was made by the Deputy who expressed the hope that the remainder of the untenanted land would be divided within a period of 25 years. I have been in this House a little over 25 years and it is a little over 25 years since the 1923 Act was passed and I hope I will live long enough to see the remainder of the untenanted land in my area acquired and divided but I am afraid if it takes another 25 years I will not be here to see it done. I do not see why it should take that long. I fear that it may take that long but, with the present Minister and greater activity on the part of the Land Commission, it would be only reasonable to expect that it should be done within a period of, at most, ten years.
On previous occasions I drew attention, on the Land Commission Estimate, to some of the major problems concerning various parts of my constituency where suitable arable lands and large bogs are available for division. I do not want to go over that on this occasion but I could mention cases that I mentioned here 15 years ago and I can only hope we are approaching the time when these estates that I referred to 15 years ago will be acquired and divided. On a couple of occasions I mentioned a case where preliminary steps were taken for acquisition and division almost immediately after the 1923 Act was passed. That estate remains in possession of the landlord who has stated repeatedly that it will never be taken from him.
I do not know the real reason why that estate remains undivided and untenanted, notwithstanding the fact that in that area there is a large number of uneconomic holders and cottage tenants. I gave the Minister the name of the estate since he came into office. It was mentioned to him when he met a deputation concerning this matter at the Courthouse, Portlaoighise, when he visited the constituency. I will give him the name again because I would be deeply interested to know why preliminary activity has been going on for 25 years and there is no hope, as far as I know, of the estate being divided even in the course of the present year. I know that certain legal quibbles were raised by the local representatives of the landlord concerned. When Deputy Aiken was Minister for Lands in 1936, he assured me in this House that he was putting a certain section into the Act—I could name the section and he referred to it as the so-and-so section of the Act—for the sole purpose of upsetting a court decision on the same matter. Still, the old story can be told and the land is not being worked in the way that I know it would be worked if it were acquired and divided among the smallholders in the area.
I should like to bring to the notice of the Minister the case of two very large bogs in Counties Laoighis and Offaly. One is the Coote Bog in County Laoighis, covering an area of 2,000 acres, in which hundreds of people living in the towns of Portlaoighise and Mountrath are deeply interested. The preliminary activity in connection with that particular estate has been going on for a long number of years, and I would urge the Minister to try to persuade the commissioners to speed up the acquisition, division and development of that very valuable bog. The other bog I refer to is in County Offaly. It is of about the same size as the Coote Bog and is on the estate of the Earl of Rosse. Thousands of people in the town of Birr and villages surrounding the area are deeply interested in that bog.
I mention these matters because every three months for a number of years I have been receiving communications asking me to make representations. I have repeatedly made representations to the Minister and to the Commissioners in connection with these two cases. If the Minister could speed up acquisition, division and development on these bogs it would meet the reasonable wishes of thousands of people living in the areas and serve a very valuable national purpose. While I am speaking in connection with the acquisition and division of bogs, I could mention others, but not of the same size and consequently not of the same importance. They are, however, very important. I want to bring to the Minister's notice a case of which I received notice recently and a case to which the Minister, as a matter of policy, should give immediate attention. It is the case of a bog situated close to the town of Portarlington. It was handed over at the commencement of the emergency period to the parish council and was worked by the parish council for nine years. The parish council is not functioning now in the same active way as it was during the period of the emergency. They were anxious and expressed the keen desire to hand over their responsibility for working that bog to some other authority.
During the emergency the bog was let to a large number of town dwellers of the town of Portarlington at 3/7 a perch. The Land Commission inspector came along a couple of weeks ago and interviewed those who were still willing to cut turf on that particular bog and indicated to their amazement that they would not be provided with facilities to work the bog in the future unless they paid 10/- a perch for a bog which had previously been let by the parish council at 3/7 a perch. I do not know what good reason can be given for increasing the price per perch by 300 per cent. or for operating a policy of that kind, but if the Minister has any influence with the commissioners, I hope he will try to dissuade them from forcing these town dwellers to pay what I believe to be an excessive price for this bog. At the commencement of the emergency period the county commissioner at that time and subsequently the county manager acquired bogs under powers which then existed at 5/- per perch which was regarded as reasonable at the time, but I regard the price of 10/- per perch in the future as being ridiculously excessive when people were able to get bog from the parish council in the past at 3/7.
I notice that the Minister in his statement indicated that over a long period of years and not in relation with the activities of one Government 1,500 holdings were given to persons who have made no genuine attempt to work them and I presume that this Minister under powers conferred upon him by his predecessor will take these holdings at the earliest possible date and hand them over to persons who will work them to better advantage than their predecessors. I know one estate where three houses were built and three holdings let to three individuals and as far as I know not one of the three ever entered the door of those houses or made any attempt to work the three holdings over a period of 12 years. I cannot understand—and I reported the matter to the Minister's predecessor in writing—why action was not taken in a case like that before now, while in the same locality there are industrious young men, sons of small farmers, who would be only too anxious to work holdings of that kind if and when they got the opportunity to do so. I do not know why holdings were given to such people. The doors were left locked and the land was left in a derelict condition.
I want to say in connection with the division of land that I personally am fully satisfied that in the case of some holdings, which are perhaps included in the figure 1,500 given by the Minister, granted to a large number of ploughmen and herds, good men who previously worked for the old landlords and gave very good service, the real reason why they were unable to work the land they got was that they had no capital to enable them to work it or to buy the stock and machinery they wanted to get a good start. If you cannot make a good start with regard to machinery, stock and so on when you get a holding there is no hope that you will be able to make good as years go by. A good ploughman should be able to work an economic holding if he has the necessary capital at the commencement of his working career to enable him to do so. I say to the Minister, notwithstanding what the Minister for Agriculture has said, that there is a shortage of working capital and that there is no use in giving the best ploughman in my constituency an economic holding and a house built at the expense of the taxpayers without giving him capital through the Agricultural Credit Corporation or by way of a grant so that he will have a solid foundation. I believe that the figure given by the Minister includes good men who gave good service to their old landlords before the land was divided.
Some Deputies who have spoken in this debate did not seem to realise the necessity for having lands vested in the holders inside a reasonable period. I would like to hear from the Minister the number of holdings which have been occupied outside a period of seven years and which still remain to be vested in their tenants. The question of vesting at the earliest possible date is in my opinion of urgent importance to a lot of people who get small holdings. I know, and I am sure the Minister also knows, that you will not get a loan from the Agricultural Credit Corporation with the best possible security unless the land is vested in you. Is that not so? I think it is correct and if it is correct I think it is a matter of vital importance to anyone who wants to get a loan from a Stateestablished credit corporation that that land should be vested as soon as possible. You would want to have the directors of the bank behind you, I know, but unless the holding is legally vested, although good security may be forthcoming behind the applicant, I do not think he will get it. I have seen cases where applications for loans to the Agricultural Credit Corporation were turned down for that reason. I was under the impression that when the Land Commission's activities were suspended during the emergency the question of vesting was well looked after, but the number of holdings which, according to the present Minister, still remain to be vested is a huge one, and I do not know if the Minister has sufficient staff at his disposal to enable that work to be completed in a reasonable time. I have heard previous Ministers say, and particularly the late Paddy Hogan, that holdings should be vested inside seven years. I have reason to believe, although I am not sure, that a considerable number of holdings still remain to be vested although the period of occupation is long over seven years.
Generally speaking, I admit that irrespective of what Minister was in office at the time the money provided for improvement work was very usefully spent in past years, but I urge upon the Minister the necessity for seeing that contractors who are engaged by the Land Commission to build houses should be men of some experience in the building contracting business and that they should not be taken from the ranks of people who have no experience either as skilled tradesmen or as building trade workers. I have seen some pretty funny looking houses put up by the Land Commission in my constituency in the past and I think that the Minister would be well advised to see that competent building contractors or skilled tradesmen with experience in the building business should be the only persons to whom contracts are given for the erection of houses with money voted to the Land Commission for this purpose. Generally speaking, the work has been fairly well done but there are cases where general complaints have been brought to my notice. In most of the cases I have looked into I find that the contractors concerned had no previous experience in the building trade business. It is essential that they should have that experience if we are to get good value for the money set aside for this purpose.
I should like the Minister to indicate in order of priority, when he is replying, the persons who, in his opinion, are best entitled to land wherever it is available for division. I understood that cottage tenants, for instance, were not specifically excluded in certain circumstances, and if other more deserving cases were provided for, from getting additions to their cottage holdings. I have received a complaint within the last few weeks that a Land Commission inspector visited a certain area in my constituency and that, notwithstanding the fact that the applicants included tenants on the estate who were uneconomic holders, tenants adjoining the estate, Old I.R.A. people, cottage tenants and so forth, all the tenants appear to have been interviewed except the cottage tenants, many of whom live within a two-mile radius of the estate that may be divided at an early date.
I regard this new scheme for increased production in eggs and poultry as one of the most valuable schemes ever undertaken by any Government in this country. I have urged the cottage tenants of this country every time I had an opportunity in the last year or two to get into egg and poultry production. I think that, in a case like that, it is desirable that the cottage tenant, if industrious, if experienced in the working of land—and probably a lot of them are, because they are agricultural labourers— should be considered for a small addition to his cottage holding if he lives within one and a half or two miles of an estate which is to be divided. I do not think such people should be excluded. Many of these people in my part of the country are so industrious that, over a long number of years, they have taken conacre lettings at very high rents whenever land is let in conacre in the area. I think one of the best recommendations is the fact that an applicant has been foolish enough, in some cases, to pay £16 or £20 an acre for conacre to help him to eke out a living for himself and his dependents. People of that type should not be specifically excluded whenever land is being divided in the immediate vicinity. I should like to know the Minister's view on that matter. If he shares my view I think the Land Commission inspectors going around the country in his name and in the name of the Department should interview and sanction the application of suitable cottage tenants and provide them with some additions to their existing holdings. The majority of the cottage tenants in the Midlands are employed either as agricultural labourers for a cash wage or as road workers. A cottage tenant who wants to retain his position in the employment of the county council as a road worker does not generally seek an economic holding, but if there is plenty of land available I do not think it is any harm if, though he may continue to be a road worker as in the past, he is provided with a couple of additional acres to his holding. I would strongly urge upon the Minister, in the case of an agricultural labourer who is living in a labourer's cottage and who has been taking conacre, that favourable consideration should be given to that type of man whenever the other people who are higher on the priority list have been provided for.
Deputy Davin said that he has been listening to debates here and has taken part in them for 25 years, and that during that period he has listened to complaints and hopes from both sides of the House. He now expresses the hope that he will not have to spend another 25 years to see these hopes fulfilled. I sincerely hope so too. To my mind this Estimate, as I said last year, is one of the most important Estimates that comes before the House. Not alone are we concerned with the question of land division but, bound up with it, is the agricultural prosperity of the country.
For years, from both sides of the House, criticism and just criticism has been levelled in regard to the inactivity of the Land Commission. I regret to have to say here that the new outlook towards national development which is being displayed in other Departments is conspicuous by its absence from the Department of Lands. The present Minister, when he took office, did not come under criticism from our Party for the simple reason that it was too soon to judge because he was not long enough in power. I think the time is now ripe when he should show signs that he is prepared to tackle the problem that bamboozled or bewildered his predecessors in office for 25 years. I hope he is not going to fall into that rut or be led up the blind alley other Ministers before him were led up, in spite of their good intentions. It is well due from him now to face these problems. If he finds that he cannot remove this air of complacency from the Land Commission he should come to this House and ask for powers to shatter that complacency.
In approaching the work of the Land Commission it is only right that we should ask, firstly, why the Land Commission was formed, and, secondly, if it was intended, when it was formed, to be a permanent body as any other Department of State. My view in regard to the first point, why the Land Commission was formed, is that it was formed to solve the land problem. If that is the case some period within which this work would be accomplished must have been visualised. It is not unreasonable to suggest that this question of solving the land problem could not be made an eternal one. The Leader of the Opposition stated in this House last week very mildly and in a very friendly tone that he hoped this question would be solved within a period of ten years. That was a pious hope. He tried to do the job but he failed. The present Minister will fail to do the job for the same reason—that the present archaic body, as Deputy Collins called it, which is at his disposal for carrying out the work, the Land Commission, is not suitable. If we examine how near we are to a solution of this land problem, how far the Land Commission have got in the past 25 years, I do not think anybody here can be satisfied with the results that it has achieved.
To my mind, the area which I know best, the west of Ireland, can still for the most part be described as an agricultural slum, a breeding ground of the twin evils of emigration and unemployment. Not alone is congestion a problem in the west of Ireland, but in various other counties, like Deputy Davin's county, you have pockets of congests right beside large untenanted farms and very little effort is being made to solve the problem of these people. As I say, very little has been done in the west of Ireland. At one time—I do not remember it of course, but I heard it from old people and I have read of the work they did—the Congested Districts Board had hoped to have solved to a great extent the problem of congestion in the west by 1925. They were replaced by a more mobile body, but 25 years have elapsed between 1925 and 1949, and we are no nearer a solution of the problem.
We have been told by the Minister, just as the last Minister told the House, that there are difficulties; that there is a shortage of staff and that, of course, it is necessary that the staff dealing with the division of land must be men of experience. Nobody denies that. Then we are told that for a period of years the Land Commission went ahead too quickly, that there was too much land divided and that undesirables got land. That is something that can never be remedied. Undesirables will always get land, and the State is saved to a certain extent by not vesting that land in them for a number of years. Mistakes will always be made by inspectors—they are only human—and if we are going to wait for years vetting the different applicants, watching out here and there, the work will never be done.
To view this question of land division in its proper perspective, we must think of other works which are being carried out in rural Ireland. Large schemes of reclamation, of drainage and of generally improving conditions in rural areas have been envisaged. I maintain that the grand, enlightened views that are expressed by Ministers in other Departments and the hopes they have for the future will be negatived by the reactionary attitude of the Land Commission. It has been stated that we have approximately 60,000 congests. Political capital may be made by different Parties who say: "We will divide the land when we get in. We will fix up all the uneconomic holders." We in Clann na Poblachta never maintained that every man who looked for land could get land. Our solution for that problem was that along the western seaboard and in the western counties it would cost an enormous amount of money to reclaim and drain these areas; that on account of the amount of money necessary to drain and reclaim areas in the west of Ireland, the expense that would be incurred, it would not be worth while doing the work; and that the alternative is to remove these people from large areas and use the land for afforestation. I do not intend to go into the question of afforestation. I just mention it as part of the Land Commission's functions. When this land would be taken, the tenants should be put in the position of small cottage farmers with two or three acres of good land and they should be employed on the afforestation schemes in the immediate neighbourhood. If you like, you could have a village situated in a locality where there was good land. That village should be a self-supporting unit and permanent work should be provided for those people on the afforestation schemes in the surrounding countrysides. That was our solution for the problems of unemployment and emigration. There is no use in tinkering at it from any other aspect. There is no hope of giving land to all these congests in the west. The land is not there, but we can certainly fix them up in another way.
I know that the present Minister comes from a congested area and that he is sincerely interested in this matter. If he finds that his hands are tied and if he has the interest of these people as much at heart as I have, let him have the courage of his convictions and come in here and look for the power to change all that.
An industrial advisory authority has been set up. That is very necessary. I think, however, that a board or something of that nature is much more necessary when we are dealing with rural problems. All these schemes I have mentioned must be dovetailed into one another. The activities of the Land Commission, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Forestry, and the activities in connection with drainage and reclamation must be dovetailed so that the problems will be examined and tackled with a view to ending for all time emigration and unemployment, especially on the western seaboard.
I shall be accused, as many other rural Deputies are, of looking at the problem from the point of view of my own particular locality. If I wanted, I could occupy the time of the House for the next hour giving instances of extraordinary decisions reached by the Land Commission in the constituency I represent. I do not think I should waste the time of the House in doing so. I prefer to deal with the problem from a wider aspect. I should just like to ask the Minister if he could give us an idea what the activities of the Land Commission have cost the State since it was started. I am inclined to believe that the amount of money expended by this august body since it was founded would buy up most of the land in the country to-day.
Deputy Davin spoke about the way people got away during the war years with their tillage problem. It is a wellknown fact that, if a man had a stallion and a few mares on his farm, he could get behind the tillage regulations. Surely, no Minister could stand for that when trying to relieve this land problem. I am afraid that the Minister, whether he likes it or not, is only a mouthpiece for that reactionary body, the Land Commission. I am inclined to believe that most of them are there for no other purpose than to safeguard the interests of the settlers and the ranchers who should not be allowed to have land or to leave it in the state that it is in. The evidence is very strong in favour of that suggestion of mine. Not only do I criticise the Department on the question of land division and acquisition, but also on the question of turbary, accommodation roads and drainage. All these come under the Minister's Department, and the state of affairs with regard to their administration is equally unsatisfactory. Disputes have been going on in connection with turbary rights, some of which I know date back ten, 15 and 16 years. No effort is being made to get any of these disputes cleared up. I found, when I tried to do so, that I was sent from Billy to Jack. The question was too hot for anybody to handle. The idea of the Land Commission, and of the people concerned, was to shift you on to the next fellow. The idea there was to keep the thing going for the rest of their lives, and then they need not worry further about it.
Another question that was raised related to housing grants and advances from the Land Commission. What I want to say on that is that the Land Commission should make up their minds either to build houses or give grants and advances, but not to be doing both in the same area. I shall give one concrete example to see if the Minister can stand over the decision of the Land Commission. I refer to the Mapother estate, Kilteevan, in the County Roscommon, where approximately ten houses were to be built by the Land Commission. That was about 1938. The grants were approximately £400. Now, on the Glover estate, which is right beside the Mapother estate, three houses have been built by the Land Commission and finished at a cost of, approximately, £700 each. In other words, the people on one estate get the grants and advances to build houses, while on the estate beside it the houses are built by the Land Commission. Any rural Deputy must know that in 1938 or 1939, if a grant or an advance were made to a farmer to build his own house he sat down by the fire and discussed it with his neighbours. The next thing that happened was that they decided the price of material would come down, and he hung on and did not bother to build the house. Everybody, of course, knows that the price of materials goes up, but the farmer always hopes to save something, and if he gets an advance or a grant to build a house he will hold on hoping against hope that the price of materials will come down and end up by not building the house at all. Would it not be better for the Land Commission to step in and build the house and finish it, even if it meant an extra cost of £200?
These are points which I desire to bring to the notice of the Minister. The main thing I want to bring to his notice is that I consider that the 25 years Deputy Davin told us he has been here must have been years of agony for him, coming in here year after year imploring the Land Commission to do something. Surely, there are grounds for my criticism to-day when I find the same criticism levelled at the Land Commission from both sides of the House. I am quite sure that the majority of Deputies on the Fianna Fáil Benches are equally as interested as I am, and as the members of our Party are, in trying to find a solution, once and for all, for this question of land division, and not have it held out, year after year, like a carrot in front of a donkey's nose, before unfortunate landless men and small uneconomic holders. I hope that the Minister is not going to sit placidly in his Ministerial bench but that he is going to face up to this problem. I think he stated that last year 20,000 acres of land were divided and that he has a programme of 25,000 acres for division this year. I regret to say that that does not raise any hopes in my breast, or in that of any other Deputy either, of a solution for this problem.
Now this is criticism from the Government side of the House. I believe that each individual Deputy, irrespective of whether he is on the Opposition side or the Government side, should speak out his mind on this. I do not care who tries to make capital out of the statements that I make on the land question. I am interested in it, and I certainly do not intend to sit on this side of the House unless I see a serious effort made to end that problem.
Deputy McQuillan, I think, will be a long time on that side of the House before he sees that problem solved to his satisfaction. The only suggestion he put forward that might help towards its solution was that there should be a super-commission of some kind appointed——
The Deputy should have listened to what was being said.
——to preside over all the other commissions that have been appointed and are in existence. According to Deputy McQuillan, the Land Commission is to be presided over by a super-Land Commission.
Wipe it out.
If that were done, according to him, it would solve the question of land division. That was the sum total of his solution for the land problem. I think it is correct to say that in introducing this Estimate for £1,500,000, the Minister made the shortest speech on record since this House came into existence. I calculate that he spoke for about ten minutes or less.
It would be a good thing if some of the Deputies followed his example.
He gave no information, but that is the Minister's business. If the Minister considered that he was giving sufficient details to the House, when looking for £1,500,000, by speaking for five or ten minutes, I do not wonder that Deputy McQuillan is looking for another commission.
This Estimate is increased by £107,070, and the Minister told us that £36,000 or £37,000 of that amount represented increased allowances for the staffs of the Land Commission, while the balance is for the improvement of estates. I think if Deputies come here this time 12 months they will find that the Land Commission, under this Estimate, could not acquire and divide any additional land. I trust Deputies will address themselves to this fact, that the Minister, under this Estimate, cannot possibly acquire and divide more land, as he suggested he would do. If he could do it, he would be doing something towards a solution of one of our problems. While the money that is provided is limited, the Department can do nothing more than what that money enables them to do. If Deputies on the Government side will use sufficient influence with the Front Bench to provide another £500,000, then we will get more land acquired and divided. Without the extra funds the Minister for Lands cannot make much progress.
The Minister did not tell us what his problem is, and why, in the past year, he did not acquire more land. He did not explain why, in the coming year, he had little hope of acquiring more land. The reason is not far to seek. We heard the Minister criticising his predecessor because there was no land acquired during the emergency. Possibly that is why he now admits that his pre-election promises cannot be carried out—because his predecessor did not provide him with a pool of land for division. The Minister should know that during the emergency land could not be acquired.
Why not?
It was acquired by foreigners.
He knows quite well that at the present time he is unable to acquire land because he is not prepared to give the necessary price for it. If he gives an economic price, then he could not give that land to tenants unless the State comes to the aid of the tenants.
And why not?
That is one explanation why land was not acquired during the war. It is not my business to defend the Minister but, in all fairness to him, and because I like his big open countenance and his smiling ways, I would like to defend and help him on every possible occasion. He is a big-hearted soul and every Deputy would like to help a big-hearted soul like the Minister.
Your kindness is touching.
The Minister will not succeed in the coming year in acquiring all the land he hopes to acquire, and that Deputies would like him to acquire, unless the Government are prepared to dig deeply into the pockets of the taxpayers and subsidise the land to the congests who need it. That is the key to land division. The price of land is 25 to 40 per cent. higher than it was ten years ago and, much as we desire to see the Minister going faster in the matter of land acquisition and division, he will have to go more easily. There is no use in purchasing land and giving it to people at a rent that they cannot afford. It would simply be putting a blister on their necks.
Will the Deputy suggest that that should be done?
I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that he should use his influence with his colleagues and encourage the Government to advance more money, because that is the only way land can be acquired and divided to the extent that Deputies would like to see it done. I challenge the Minister to find any other solution. The Minister promised he would bring in a Bill to enable him to pay more money for land. Unless the Exchequer will provide him with the money, his Bill will be no use. I suggest that he does not need any Bill, because if he has the money to get the land he will get it. The existing land law in this country enables him to acquire land if he is prepared to pay the price.
That is not true.
It is absolutely true. It is not, of course, laid down in any enactment of this House.
That is the trouble—it is.
The price of land, the detailed figure for land, is not laid down in any enactment.
The method of determining the price is.
To say that you should give £50 or £100 an acre—that is not laid down.
That is merely quibbling. The method of determining the price is definitely laid down.
I notice that the Minister is providing himself with some extra helpers. The Estimate provides for 19 extra officials. We hope they will be able to do something to provide the Minister with more land. It is a good many years ago since in this House I suggested to the then Minister that there was little use in building the sod fences that we have seen the Land Commission building on lands they have divided. A large portion of the fences they have built has fallen. I have seen them all over the place. That is because they built a cheap type of fence, much too narrow. They were not proper sod fences at all. It would be better to spend more money building a proper fence than to waste money building the type of fence that has been built.
With regard to the roads the Land Commission made in past years, they about half made roads into divided land. The Land Commission never seemed to have sufficient funds to do the job properly when they were dividing any estate. They were the Cinderella of Government Departments. They had the best of men to carry out improvement works, but they were in such straitened circumstances in the matter of funds that they never could do a decent job. That was my experience of some estates that I saw divided in the past.
In the matter of tenanted land subject to an annuity, has the Land Commission any interest in a holding which is vested? They seem to have no interest in the matter of providing funds for the building of dwelling-houses on such holdings. Possibly the Minister will deny that the Land Commission has any responsibility for making advances towards tenants who purchased their holdings ten, 20, 30 or 40 years ago. This is a serious problem at the present time and has been a serious one for a number of years past.
To what type of tenant is the Deputy referring?
To the ordinary type of tenant.
You have the two different types; you have vested land and unvested land.
This tenant was never a tenant of the Land Commission. His land was not given to him by the Land Commission. The holding has been in the possession of his family for three or four generations. For some reason or another people in that particular type of holding, or tenancy, are unable to get loans to enable them to build houses. They cannot get loans from the Credit Corporation and they do not qualify under the Small Dwellings Act. The holdings consist of sound arable land but the dwelling-houses have fallen into disrepair. They have not the money available to erect new dwellings and they cannot get the money from some other source. There are thousands of such cases throughout the country. The situation is a serious one.
In respect of the activities of the Land Commission, there are a number of holdings which are going out of existence year by year all over the country. More holdings are going out of existence than the Land Commission is actually creating. I want that fact to sink in. Additional holdings are being acquired by neighbours adding to their existing holdings. A man with 50 acres decides to sell and his neighbour beside him, who has another 50 acres, decides to buy in order to enlarge his holding. Twenty-five years from now the Land Commission will be looking for land and they will be forced to acquire that land from people who are now purchasing it on the open market. Holdings are growing larger all over the eastern counties.
In some years hence the number of holdings in the eastern counties will be halved. There is nothing in law to prevent anybody buying extra land. One effect of the serious situation in regard to lack of title is that the present holders are disposing of their lands because they cannot live on the holdings. Many such have been brought to my attention. Where a tenant makes application to the Minister for an advance for the erection of a dwelling-house on such a holding the Minister should make that money available to him and could redeem the advance made by adding it to the annuity. I do not know whether the Land Commission has power to do that. If it has power, then it uses it very sparingly.
Were these people refused grants by the Department of Local Government?
No. They were told that the Minister for Lands or the Land Commission had no function in the matter.
But the Department of Local Government is there to meet their case.
They were not asking for a free grant from the Land Commission. They were asking for an advance.
If they have title they will get a loan. If they have not title we shall not lend money to men of straw.
Men of straw—they have title and are in occupation, but they probably have not proved their title. Possibly a man's grandfather made a will for which probate was never taken out. The Credit Corporation will not give a loan. The county council cannot give an advance under the Small Dwellings Act. The tenants are without proper dwelling-houses. The problem is a serious one throughout the country.
I quite appreciate that the problem may be a serious one, but surely it is up to the tenant to establish his title.
If he had the money to establish his title he would not be worried. Many of these tenants have not got the money. In some cases proving title might cost more than the actual holding is worth. Two-thirds of the titles to the land in this country are not in order and the Minister knows that. The number is growing year by year.
Queer things must be happening in Wexford.
You would be surprised at the number.
The banks probably hold the title to some of them.
The banks are not the enemy at all. I do not think the banks are interested in land to any great extent and I do not believe they hold title to much of the land of this country as far as I am aware. I am sure the Minister will look into this matter and I am sure that if he can do anything he will do it.
I shall look into it.
Other sections of the community are covered in relation to housing but there is no specific provision in any enactment for the housing of farmers. This year we hope that the Minister for Agriculture will give grants for the improvement of out-offices, but nothing will be given for the improvement of dwelling-houses. This is a very urgent problem.
I would like to make a few remarks. I shall be very brief. This is a very complex problem. It is a problem in which one sees some difficulty in finding a solution because of the diversity of opinions that has been offered on it. In my view the situation is rather confused. I do not know where to start. There is an old Latin proverb, Errando discimus—we learn by mistakes. After 25 years handling this very complex problem the Land Commission ought to have learned. I was impressed with many of the points put forward by Deputy Davin. I was not impressed by Deputy McQuillan. I listened to him very carefully. He made severe criticisms on generalities. Assuming the responsibility he did, I had hoped to hear from him some constructive criticism which would be of assistance to the Minister and to the Land Commission. But I did not hear that.
I understand that there are certain fundamentals or guiding principles which cast upon the Minister and upon the Land Commission a kind of statutory obligation in the selection of tenants for lands that have been acquired and divided. I do not know if I have them in the proper order of priority. I understand that the first and most important are those who have uneconomic holdings; secondly, evicted tenants; thirdly, those previously employed on an estate now acquired and about to be divided; fourthly, those with an I.R.A. record; and the last category, those living in labourers' cottages. If my interpretation of these fundamentals is even approximately correct would it not be a good thing for the Land Commission to examine under these heads to see how far, after 25 years, the selection made by them was satisfactory and whether they turned out to be efficient tenants, prosperous in themselves and beneficial to the whole economy of the State? If they find after analysis and honest examination that a number of the steps taken under these fundamental heads were not beneficent to the community or to the individuals concerned is it not time that they should be reviewed and renewed? A very useful thing would be done for the nation if legislation were passed—
The Deputy may not advocate legislation.
I ask your permission.
The trouble is that I cannot give permission.
I will put it in another way so that I might escape the castigation of the Chair.
The emphasis is on the "might".
If the Land Commission inspectors were not unduly and improperly interfered with by political Parties I think a good service would result. I was going to say that it would be to the benefit of all Parties to introduce legislation to preclude that interference.
The Deputy was going to say it, and he has said it.
I am inclined to agree. Listening last year and to-day there seems to be an insistent improper pressure by all the Deputies of the House, which seems to go on in continuity, asking the Minister and the Land Commission to rush headlong into the acquisition of land. If the Land Commission moved more slowly and spent more time in a proper selection of the allottees it would do much better work. Let us take the uneconomic holders. The fact that they are uneconomic holders with three or four acres and a valuation of £10 gives them a statutory right to land without, I am afraid, any proper examination into the circumstances or the manner in which these three or four acres are managed. We are told, and I am subject to correction, that nearly 2,000 of these allottees to whom land was given under the different Governments had to be dispossessed. Surely, there must be something radically wrong in the selection of these 2,000 being given land by the Land Commission in good faith and with the proper recommendations if in a few years they are proved to be totally unsuitable and a dead weight to the whole economic life of the country. Under that heading alone there ought to be an examination.
If in the past these 2,000 selected allottees were not of the kind who should have been selected it is time for the Land Commission to examine their conscience on that particular heading. I think one serious mistake has been made by the Land Commission. In my county I know quite a number of labourers who have been given four or five acres of land. They are very excellent men of my own parish. I appeal to the Land Commission in any subsequent division of land to that class to give them more. Take the case of a labouring man with five acres who heretofore worked on the roads and comes under the category of a road worker. He got five acres of land, much of which was under water. He was neither a farmer nor a road worker. The fact of being in possession of a few acres of land precluded him, ordinarily speaking, from working on the road. Five acres of land for a working man with five, six or seven children are not economical and he is not able to maintain himself and his family and rear them under proper and reasonable conditions. I would respectfully suggest to the Minister that, during his term of office and in the division of land in which he will have a lot to say, he should give people of that category at least 20 acres of land. It is much better to put 20 of these people on 20 acres as a guarantee to the State and a security to themselves and their little ones in order to bring them up decently under proper circumstances rather than to give them three or four acres from which they can derive nothing but a miserable existence.
The fact that many of those who have been employed in large estates are about to be displaced from employment leaves them a specific right and title to a part of that estate. I know quite a number of these. Whether they were satisfactory workers in that employment or not I do not know. I presume the Land Commission examined them in that regard. I am satisfied, however, that many of those I know have turned out to be wasters.
It is a lamentable state of things that there is the condition in the country at the moment where an allottee to whom a house and land have been given by the Land Commission is scarcely able to make a decent living from that day to this. Remembering the dearth of houses and the national pressure for the building of houses for our people, yet in the rural parts there are 14 and 15 living in labourers' cottages, three families together. Many of these houses were built by the Land Commission and there they were with the key turning in the door and no proper examination to see who got them. Is that right, just or equitable? Is it fair to the country where you have a dearth of houses and where I have known families to sleep in haybarns? Since the money of the State and taxpayer is being utilised by the Land Commission legal steps should be taken to see that these people should be given houses built by the State.
Last year I defended the officials of the Land Commission against an attack made upon them in certain parts of the House. I am slow to condemn and I always try to temper castigation with the maximum of Christian charity. I know that we are all human but, in some measure, I have had to change my mind. I remember bringing forward a case when I was in the Seanad about four years ago and I requested the Land Commission to acquire a certain holding of 200 acres. After a few days I got the usual "A Chara" communication: "I am directed by the Land Commission to reply to your letter of such a date. The matter is under review and will receive sympathetic consideration—Mise le meas." On receiving such a letter, in good faith you transmit the information, negative though it may be, to the intending applicant for a holding in the hope that something will be done. Months pass, and finding that nothing happens, you again call to 24 Upper Merrion Street and in a few days you get back "A Chara" again. So, like the babbling brook, it goes on singing its plaintive wail of "A Chara" and "Mise le meas". I told the Minister about this place a few days ago and he was amazed. Nearly five years have not been sufficient to enable the Land Commission to take advantage of a voluntary offer for the acquisition of 300 acres of land, land suitable in every way for division into economic holdings and to be given to people who are willing and ready to use it in a productive fashion. I must say now that I am only one of those who think that there is slowness and lethargy connected with the Land Commission. Subject to correction, I understand that for a considerable time they have in another part of the county been in possession of 1,200 acres of land and, to everybody who knows the particular case, it is inexplicable why the Land Commission should be so slow in carrying out the sub-division of that land.
As regards vesting, Deputy Davin has not spent 25 years here without having learned in this university of public life what is the reason why people have holdings in their possession for 12 and 13 years and have not had these holdings vested. The fact that holdings in such cases have not been vested has a very deleterious influence on the person occupying the land. There are certain improvements he will not carry out so long as he feels that he is not yet the owner of the land and has not yet seen the realisation of one of the famous three F's—fixity of tenure. I can confirm the statement made by Deputy Davin by adding that I know of many such cases. Why the Land Commission are so slow on the target, I cannot understand. However, I think the present Minister is doing his best. I have no doubt that the Minister before him worked hard, too, but I should like the Land Commission and the Minister closely to examine the circumstances that guided them in the selection of allottees in the past, 2,000 of whom had to be evicted because they were incompetent, had not sufficient industry and were a drag on the State. If 2,000 of those who had been selected for good and sufficient reasons, turned out to be useless and of no benefit to the State, the Land Commission should be very careful in examining the credentials of future applicants for land.
As I have said I believe the Minister is doing his best and that the Minister who preceded him also did his best. I believe it was the desire of these Ministers to administer the Department to the best of their ability. I shall conclude by saying to Deputies in all parts of the House that it would be a good thing if something could be done to restrain undue and improper interference with officials and inspectors of the Land Commission. There was unmistakable proof in this Dáil before of such interference and political influence left its mark in the improper selection of certain individuals as tenants. If the Land Commission were allowed to do their work, and, if the responsibility were left with the responsible inspectors, free from undue and improper interference, I am sure it would work not alone for the betterment of the community and for those who are going to occupy the land but it would ultimately promote the economic development of our country.
I expected that when the Minister was introducing this Estimate he would give the House some idea of what his policy or the policy of the Land Commission, particularly with regard to the acquisition of land, was going to be for the future. I expected some definite statement of policy from the Minister, particularly in view of the fact that he was so loquacious when he was in Opposition about the policy of his predecessor with reference to the acquisition of land and the relief of congestion in the congested areas. I would also have expected the Minister to indicate what target he was setting for his Department in regard to the acquisition of land and the relief of congestion or what ideas he had on such questions as what the size of an economic holding should be. In view of the previous statements of the Minister, it is rather disappointing to see the small amount of money he asks the Dáil to provide for the solution of these vital problems. The Minister is providing a sum of £100,000 in the Estimates for the purpose of dealing with estates, which is the most important portion of the work of the Land Commission. One hundred thousand pounds is a very small sum indeed to deal with this problem. It will only go to the fringe of solving the problems with which the Minister has to deal. The Minister suggested himself, before he became Minister, that the amount provided by the Dáil was absolutely inadequate. Speaking in this House on the 6th May, 1947—I quote from Volume 105, columns 2187-8:—The present Minister, then Deputy Blowick, informed us here that a sum of £1,400,000 was a miserable sum to provide for this purpose—the purpose of the Land Commission. He continued:—
"The Minister for Industry and Commerce, the Minister for Agriculture or the Minister for Defence would not be satisfied with a miserable provision of that sort. The Minister for Defence is asking for £5,000,000 for an Army, when every person in the country knows that an Army costing no more than £2,000,000 or £2,500,000 would be quite adequate to meet our needs now that the emergency has passed."
He said later on:—
"I do not see why the Land Commission could not go into the open market and purchase land in certain instances, if they want it. The Minister may say that there would be bogus bidders at such a sale. There may be, but even the private purchaser has to face that possibility. The Minister may say, further, that he has no precedent for such an action, but I say he has."
The present Minister for Lands then suggested that £1,400,000 was a paltry sum to be provided for the problems to be solved by the Land Commission; and he went further, to suggest that £6,000,000 or £7,000,000 per year should be provided.
Why has the Minister changed his tune, now that he has responsibility and now that he has a duty, if he considers the amount is necessary, to provide the £6,000,000 for Irish land drainage? If he was sincere in suggesting that £1,400,000 was a paltry sum and that £6,000,000 was required to carry out the work effectively, now that he has responsibility and sufficient Deputies behind him to carry such an Estimate here, why has he not provided that sum? We know that £1,400,000 is not going to get the Land Commission anywhere. We know that that sum is completely inadequate to make any inroad on the congestion problem or the rearrangement of estates, or particularly for the solution of that most vital headache of the Land Commission and the community, that is, the rundale system in the congested districts.
The Minister suggested that his Estimate this year is £100,000 higher than the Estimate last year. That is true, but if you look at the Estimate this year and see that practically all of that sum of £100,000 is due to the increase in salaries of the civil servants, you will see that the amount left available for the real work of the Land Commission has not increased but is, in fact, reduced. The best comparison that could be made, in any event, is not with the Estimates of last year. We know—the Minister himself admits it—that the Land Commission had not got the officials back until during the last 12 months. We know that Land Commission operations had of necessity to be closed down during the war period and the staff spread over the Department of Agriculture to deal with compulsory tillage, and the Department of Supplies as it then was. The Minister cannot now suggest that he has not got all his minions back on the job. Their war-time work has been completed and the Land Commission have got back the staff they lent. Therefore, during the past 12 months, for the first time since the war, the Land Commission should have been in a position to proceed full steam ahead with the normal work they had in hands prior to the war. The last normal year, I would suggest, with which we could compare figures for our purpose would be 1936-37 or 1937-38, that is, before the war broke out. It is significant that, in the latter year, for the improvement of estates there was a sum of £606,550 under that heading alone.
How much was spent?
That sum was spent, for Deputy Davin's information.
Are you sure?
If we take the valuation rates suggested by Deputy Davin's Finance Minister, Deputy McGilligan —voted into power by Deputy Davin —we find that Deputy McGilligan assures us that the £1 now is worth only 10/- compared with its value in 1939. At that rate, the sum of £606,550 expenditure by the Land Commission on the improvement of estates prior to the war would mean that, in that year, there was in effect, on present day values, £1,213,100 spent on the improvement of estates. This year we are down to what I now call the paltry sum of £100,000 provided under an Estimate for that vital work of the improvement of estates.
Of course, that is not correct. The amount is £354,800.
The Minister himself stated that the sum of £100,000 was provided for the improvement of estates. The Parliamentary Secretary might take the matter up with the Minister and let them fight it out between them.
There is another matter in which the Parliamentary Secretary might correct the Minister or myself, or give further information to the House. I cannot accept what the Minister stated here, in introducing this Estimate, that he hoped he had 20,000 acres divided by the Land Commission during the past year. He reiterated that statement at a public meeting in Westport on Saturday last, but he went a little bit further, because he assured everybody there that the Land Commission had at least 20,000 acres divided during the previous year. In reply to a question here, the Minister stated that, up to the 30th September of last year the amount of land divided by the Land Commission was 6,006 acres. If the Minister was correct in giving that reply, it seems extraordinary that in the remaining few weeks left of last year they were able to make a sudden spurt and divide 12,000 acres—in the four remaining weeks.
There are 13 weeks from the 30th September.
When the Deputy has as much experience as I have of the Irish Land Commission, he will consider it a matter for amazement if the Land Commission would divide 12,000 acres in 13 weeks. I would like the Minister to tell us who is correct. He says it took the Land Commission the whole of the year up to the 30th September to divide 6,006 acres. Were the figures the Minister gave in reply to that question inaccurate and, if so, would he give us the correct figures now as to the amount of land divided by the Land Commission during that year? If the figure of 6,000 for that part of the year is correct, then the figure of 20,000 over the whole year must be wrong.
Do you accept the Minister's statement?
I accept one of these statements, but one of them, on the figures, must be wrong. Either the answer the Minister gave as to the amount of land divided up to that date, 6,000 acres, is incorrect or the figure given by the Minister now, 20,000 acres divided during the year, is incorrect. One or the other is incorrect, or there was some extraordinary visitation to the Irish Land Commission which woke them out of their sleep, because, if it took them practically the whole year to divide 6,000 acres, I cannot see how they could have proceeded, with this sudden rush before the Christmas holidays, to divide overnight the 12,000 acres.
They might have got the Kruschen feeling—you never can tell.
I find great difficulty on occasions in doing so, so far as the Minister's statements are concerned, and that is one of his statements which I find it difficult to reconcile with the answer he gave to my question.
Is the Deputy satisfied that one is correct?
I believe that one is incorrect. Perhaps the Minister has some explanation. Perhaps something extraordinary did happen in the Land Commission during October and November before they adjourned for the Christmas holidays.
One of them is incorrect?
I suggest that one of them is incorrect.
You are not saying it is incorrect.
I challenge the Minister on the figure of 20,000 acres which he mentioned at Westport in the year I am speaking of, last year. However, it is a matter we can elucidate by Parliamentary Question and find out what extraordinary change came over the Land Commission between September and December of last year which made them suddenly shake themselves and proceed to have 12,000 acres divided during those few weeks.
The Minister, before he became Minister, said:
"I say that a man wants 35 acres of good land. If there is waste land which must be attached to the holding, it should be brought up to about 40 acres at the very least. Anything less than 35 statute acres of arable land is inadequate. It is only creating a further problem for some Government in the future. Arising out of land agitation in my county, Deputies on both sides of the House have tried, both in the House and outside it, to make political capital by stating that this Party are opposed to free sale and fixity of tenure."
The Minister then proceeded to say that that was not so. It was his view then that the size of the holding should be 35 acres of good land. I take it the Minister meant 35 acres of good arable land or 40 acres of land that might not be so good—at any rate, the equivalent of 35 acres of land. I want to know from the Minister whether he still holds that view and whether he intends to give effect to it. The Minister, with the resources at his disposal, should settle for all time what should be the size of a holding, and if the figure of 35 acres of good arable land is still in his mind I do not see why he should not make it a rule in the Land Commission that the size should be 35 acres.
That being so, the Minister presumably now should be able to tell the House the amount of land the country, and particularly the congested areas, may expect to be available for the relief of congestion and what the policy of the Land Commission in connection with it is. He should be able to tell the House how far he intends to go towards solving the congestion problem by migration to these lands, and he should be frank enough to tell the House whether he still holds the view that land should be acquired in the open market and market prices paid by the Land Commission. If the Minister still holds this view, it appears to me to be extraordinary that he has taken no steps during his period in office to get the Land Commission to acquire such land in the open market at the market price.
Anybody who takes up the paper can see lands advertised every day in the week. I gave an instance here on one occasion of the area of land advertised for sale in the midlands on one day which, I think, is relevant to this discussion. On January 15th of this year, in the Irish Independent, under the name of one auctioneer alone, there were advertised ten sales of 1,487 acres in County Kildare. On the same day, under other auctioneers' names, lands to the extent of 1,893 acres were advertised in the midlands and on that day also grazing to the extent of 664 acres in the midlands was advertised. Some Deputies may think we should not go into the question of lands advertised for grazing, but if they were familiar with the operation of the Land Commission in the congested areas, they would know that one of the reasons why the Land Commission step in to acquire land for the relief of congestion is that the owners of the land let them in grazing when they are not using them themselves. If that reason is good enough for the Land Commission acquiring land in Mayo or other congested areas, it should be an equally good reason for acquiring land in the midlands where people are letting their lands in conacre or for grazing. At all events, on this one day, there were advertised in the Irish Independent 4,044 acres. Averaged over 30 days, that would give a considerable pool of land to be earmarked for the relief of congestion.
If the Minister was sincere in his contention before he became Minister that the Land Commission should go into the open market and purchase lands where they are advertised, paying market prices for them, why has he not now got his inspectors or his officials attending these sales and purchasing these lands for the relief of congestion? Why did he not take the opportunity offered him by advertisements such as these to acquire over 4,000 acres? Why, if he is sincere about acquiring a pool of land for the relief of congestion and the migration of tenants from the western districts, is he not now taking these steps and why has he not laid it down as the policy of his Department that these lands should be purchased in the open market? If the Minister is prepared to do that—and he seemed to hold that view very strongly within 12 months of the time he became Minister—he can acquire land for the relief of congestion, and, so long as he pays the market price in the open market, nobody can have any grouse or say anything to him.
The Minister some time ago told us, in reply to a Parliamentary Question of mine, that two people were migrated from County Mayo last year. As there are over 23,000 congests or people under £10 valuation in Mayo, if we proceed at the rate of two per year, we will never see an end of this problem. It is rather significant that there were only two people migrated from County Mayo by the Minister during the last 12 months because it is the first time that the Land Commission were functioning in a normal year with full staffs. It is rather interesting that, notwithstanding the emergency, the Minister's figure for migration is the lowest figure on record since the year 1937. In 1937, 17 migrants were taken from the west. The figure for 1934 was 4; for 1939, 25; 1940, 31; 1941, 31; 1942, 30; 1943, 15; 1944, 9; 1945, 7; 1946, 13, and in the year 1948-49, with a Minister who is familiar with the congests problem directing the activities of the Land Commission, two migrants were taken out of Mayo to relieve the problem of congestion there.
If the Minister's difficulty is one of finance, I have no doubt that there are many Deputies sitting behind him, as well as Deputies on this side of the House, who would be prepared to support him in a demand for adequate finance to deal with this problem. If the Minister thinks now, as he seemed to think before he became Minister, that sufficient money is not being provided, why does not he ask the co-operation of this House in treating this congestion problem as the national and social problem that it is? The land slum problem is just as much a social problem as the slum problem in the cities. If the Minister were frank with the House and said that this question must be tackled in a national way and that the State must face up to its responsibilities in this respect and provide adequate finance, he would have the sympathy and co-operation of the entire House. But the Minister has not told us what his plans are. He has not told us what his policy is. He has not informed us whether he still holds the view that £7,000,000 a year is necessary for the operations of the Land Commission or whether, having been in the Land Commission for over 12 months, he is now satisfied that, say, £1,500,000 is sufficient. The Minister will have to face up to his responsibilities in this matter one of these days and inform the House and the country what his aims are and what his policy is.
This air of uncertainty, this lack of frankness on the part of the Minister as to his intentions and his policy will have a very grave effect on the unfortunate victims of congestion because numbers of those people are hanging on from year to year expecting that in the near future the Land Commission will come to their assistance. You will have people hanging on, particularly people on the rundale system where estates cannot be divided unless some people are migrated from the areas. A number of them are hanging on in the hope that in the near future migration will be speeded up and they will be afforded an opportunity of migrating from the congested areas and their little bits of holdings left for division amongst their neighbours.
It would be much better for the people concerned and much straighter if they were told that there is a solution for the problem, that they can hope for some relief within the next three or five years, say, or that there is no hope of their ever getting out and that it is just as well for them to know that and not to look to the mirage of the Land Commission ever coming to their assistance. It would be much more fair to these people to tell them where they stand. It would ease their minds. At all events, they would know whether it would pay them better to put up their little plots for sale and get out of the place than to hang on in the hope that ultimately the glacier-like movement of the Land Commission will reach them. It is unfair and unjust to leave these people in that condition.
As far as the policy of the Land Commission in the West is concerned at the moment—I do not know whether it is on the Minister's direction or not, I presume it is—it would appear that the officials are concentrating on an inspection of what I call black stripes or little plots of two, three and four acres with a view to acquiring them for the relief of congestion, where these plots have been sublet or where, for instance, the holdings are so unecomonic that their owners have had to migrate for a year or two to try to earn sufficient money across the water to pay the debts on the holding or to save sufficient to build a house, or something like that. The Land Commission inspectors are going about inspecting these little additions and holdings and the subsequent result is that the usual notice is served or they are called to appear before the Land Commission Court to show cause as to whether these parcels should be acquired or not.
According to the 1946 Act, for which the Deputy voted.
I am quite well aware of the provisions of the 1946 Act.
Do not blame the Minister for that.
The Minister or, if it was not the Minister, it was some of his colleagues, expressed approval of some of the work being done under the 1946 Act and, if my information is correct, the Minister is exercising his rights under the 1946 Act to a very large degree. The Parliamentary Secretary well knows that there was a very good reason for the passage of the 1946 Act. I understand that in certain parts of the country holdings were given to people in which they have never lived.
And I used the 1946 Act against these to the fullest.
I am suggesting that there was a very good reason for the 1946 Act and I would not for a moment attempt to protect people who were allocated holdings and for whom houses were built on them who have allowed these holdings to become derelict. What I am suggesting is that in the congested areas in County Mayo it is a complete waste of Land Commission officials' time to be chasing around inspecting two, three and four acre plots because, even if they are acquired, it will not solve any problem; it will not even bring the holdings adjoining them up to the size of economic holdings; it will not even touch the fringe of the congestion problem in the area. It would be much better if, instead of wasting time in counties like Mayo inspecting these little plots, these gentlemen were sent to deal with the 1,487 acres or the 1,893 acres that I have mentioned or the huge tracts of land that are up for sale in the midlands day after day and that change hands on the public market day after day. It would be better if these officials were sent after those who refused to till during the emergency when the Land Commission had to come in and take over their holdings because they would not till. It would be better to acquire their land for the relief of congestion instead of fooling around dealing with two, three or four acre plots in the west of Ireland. The Minister will not make any inroads in the question or any headway in dealing with the congestion problem in the west of Ireland or in the other congested areas by, as I call it, wasting the Land Commission's time in that way. On this question of the acquisition of land for the relief of congestion, the Minister, before he became Minister, suggested that the market value should be paid.
I quite agree, but it may be that the Minister thinks that there is some difficulty in paying the market value because the market value of land fluctuates as between county and county and district and district. But that is a matter which can be very easily got over with the machinery which the Minister has at present. If the Land Commission Courts in these cases accepted the evidence of local auctioneers and valuers as to the comparative prices paid for land in the district during the previous 12 months the courts would have no difficulty in assessing compensation and giving the full market value. If the Minister is going to pay the full market value— as he should—to anybody whose property is taken from them, the State will have to come to the rescue regarding finance. We all know and realise that, but it is, I think, something which should be done. There is as much reason and justification for the State's coming to the assistance of the relief of congestion as there is for its coming to the assistance of people who require houses. It is just as great a problem and there is just as much reason that the State should subsidise the purchase of land by the Land Commission for the purpose of relieving congestion. Mind you, if that were done a great amount of compulsion might not be necessary. If land-owners throughout the State were assured by the Minister and his Department that in any case where they were prepared to sell at market prices that they would get market prices, the Minister would find that a considerable volume of land would be made available to him without even the trouble of acquiring it compulsorily, or the delay of the entitlement procedure as we know it, publishing notice in Iris Oifigiúil and giving time for a petition to be put in against the acquisition of the land. Once the Minister and the State recognised the right of the individual to the market value to be determined, say, by the Land Commission Court, once that principle was laid down, the Minister might find a great volume of land available to him and that much delay would be avoided. I would expect that the Minister would tell the House his policy on this matter when he is replying and lay down what his policy is going to be in connection with the price to be paid for land on acquisition.
Have I not said so?
The Minister made many statements on this question before he became Minister, but although I have read, I think, all the Minister's pronouncements on land acquisition since he became Minister, I did not see any place where he announced that he was prepared to pay the full market value for lands to be acquired by the Land Commission. If the Minister has said so I would like him to refer me to where he made that statement.
I think that if you look up the debate on Deputy Cogan's private land Bill you will find it, or at least you ought to if my memory is not playing tricks with me.
I do not know when the Minister laid this down. It has been unknown to me and to most people I talked to in connection with this matter. I think the new departure for the Land Commission to pay the full market value without a reduction in the redemption value of the annuities——
I said the Government intended to do it but it has to be embodied in legislation which is being prepared at the moment.
The Government intend to do it, and amending legislation is to be introduced? If that is so I am very glad to hear it, and I can only hope that a long time will not elapse before legislation is introduced to deal with this problem and that we will not come in here again next year on this Estimate to find that we are in the same position. If the Minister thinks amending legislation to be necessary and if he wants the introduction of that legislation solely on the question of price it would take a very short and simple Bill to deal with the matter. In the case of an urgent matter like this I think the Minister has had ample time to consider the question, but if he is now undertaking the introduction of legislation in the near future, I will pass from that matter saying only that it is something that should be done, and something that may make land available that would not otherwise be available to the Land Commission.
The Minister did not indicate what progress had been made regarding the alleviation of the rundale system. The Minister used to be very verbose in connection with the evils of the rundale system in the West of Ireland, but I do not know if the Minister will tell us now that legislation is necessary for that situation.
No.
He was not of that opinion before becoming Minister. He was of the opinion that plenty of legislation and machinery existed to deal with any of these problems. If the Minister is agreed that there is plenty of legislation on the Statute Book to deal with such problems I must say that the snail-like progress of the Department during the last 12 months does not reflect any great credit on his officials with regard to the solution of this problem. As the Minister is well aware, there are a large number of estates in County Mayo where the rundale system still operates and as far as information is available to me there has been no attempt during the last 12 months to bring relief to those people.
To any of them?
To those who are most vitally affected and with whom the Minister is familiar. I would like the Minister to tell us what progress he has made in connection with the people of Kiltarshane, a place he went to and walked himself, upsetting the Land Commission scheme in connection with it.
Do not make charges.
Perhaps the Minister was not active in these early days before becoming Minister. We had an extraordinary statement from the Minister the other night that he is not responsible for what the Land Commission officials do.
I said no such thing.
But the Minister held this opinion when he was a Deputy. We had charge after charge from him as to how his predecessor was responsible for his officials bungling these schemes. The Minister then took it upon himself to go out to the unfortunates living in Kiltarshane and point out to them how the officials were wrong. As a result of the Minister's interference on that occasion the scheme did not go through and has not gone through.
I am very glad I went out that time. I stopped a grave injustice from being done.
The Minister has been in office for over 12 months and the people of Kiltarshane are in the same position now as they were then.