Deputy Cunningham mentioned the drainage of slobland from Burnfoot to Newtowncunningham. As the Deputy said, the lands concerned were reclaimed from the sea by means of an intricate and extensive scheme of embankments and sluices. A fund amounting to about £7,000 was established on the sale of the lands under the Land Purchase Acts, the interest on which was intended to meet the cost of keeping the drainage and protective works in good order. Unfortunately, with the passage of time, the interest on the maintenance fund has become quite inadequate to meet the cost of repairs and the Land Commission have in fact on several occasions been compelled to come to the aid of the fund out of voted moneys.
It must not be thought, however, that the Land Commission have any liability for the repair or maintenance of the works apart from the expenditure of the interest on the maintenance fund. The tenants failed to take responsibility for the management of the fund and the Land Commission were compelled to take over this duty, foreign as it is to their normal function. It is not for the Land Commission to undertake a major scheme of reconstruction; they are not a drainage authority and they have not either the equipment or expert personnel to undertake such work. The most the Land Commission can do is to continue to supervise the expenditure of the interest on the maintenance and keep the system in a fair state of repair until the major work of reconstruction can be tackled by a national drainage authority.
Land Commission roads came in for a good deal of criticism and I would like to point out once and for all that it is not the duty of the Land Commission to maintain and repair roads. When they divide a farm it is necessary for the Land Commission to make roads—I think it was Deputy Burke who said these roads were so narrow that you could not walk down them. That is not correct because the Land Commission are compelled to make roads not less than 16 feet wide and not wider than 21 feet and in most cases they also consult with the county surveyor of the county in which they are doing the work because it is their purpose to see that a good serviceable road is provided for the accommodation of the tenants. But it is the duty of the tenants themselves afterwards to see that these roads are maintained and repaired. The Land Commission cannot go on repairing fences and roads forever. The number of allottees of the Land Commission is small compared with the total number of farmers throughout the country who get no assistance for pumps nor in many cases for roads. The same machinery is there for Land Commission allottees to have the roads repaired as for any other tenants throughout the country.
At the present time, the rural improvement scheme, wherever I have seen it, is doing a wonderful job of work, and all over the West of Ireland I see that the rural improvement scheme will be availed of. There is no reason why Land Commission allottees should not use the same machinery. It is there for them. I think Deputies would be wise to bring that to their notice and Deputies should disabuse their minds of the belief that once the Land Commission make the road they have any authority to maintain it. We do not vote one penny for the maintenance or repair of those roads and I think it would be wrong if we had another road authority. At the present time we have 27 county councils and the Special Employment Schemes Office and is it now proposed to add to those the Land Commission as an extra road authority? I think that would be very wrong.
Deputy Bartley complained about the number of migrants' holdings in West Galway this year, but the Deputy mixed up the number of migrants from the whole county in the previous year and mentioned only West Galway this year. Land Commission work in Galway is going ahead better than in many other counties.
Deputy Maguire was very wroth with me because I did not turn prophet when replying to a parliamentary question which he had down on a previous occasion, and forecast what would be done throughout the whole year. He said that the Minister should not withhold information from the House. I agree with that, but it is not the business of the Minister to give a reply to a parliamentary question when most of that reply could be only conjecture. Deputy Maguire had asked me how many holdings would the Land Commission be preparing in July, August, September and October. I do not know, neither does anybody else; we can only make a guess. I think that, at question time, Ministers should be strictly accurate in their replies and I would not mislead the House by giving a guess, which would be only a guess, so that I have no apology to offer for the reply I gave to the Deputy. I take a very serious view of replies to parliamentary questions and if I cannot give the truth I will not give any answer at all.
Deputy Gilbride also referred to a place in Sligo that the Land Commission has taken over and where he said the owner has not been paid. The Deputy did not identify the owner and I would ask him to send particulars of the case and I will let him know the position, but I think that here again the possibility is that the owner has not cleared his title and will not be paid until he does.
Deputy Bartley suggested that the tenants in Inishark should be brought to the mainland and drew a comparison with the case of the Blasket Islands. There is really no similarity between the two cases. The Blasket islanders were brought over and were given only small holdings on the mainland retaining their island holdings. Deputy Bartley is asking that the tenants should be brought from Inishark to the mainland and given their full holdings there. I shall look into that. The question of Inishark has been on the mat for quite a long time and if there is anything I can do, I shall do it.
Many Deputies commented on the fact that the Land Commission have not availed themselves fully of the powers given to them under Section 27 of the 1950 Act, the section which allows them to buy land for cash either in the open market or by private treaty. That land can only be used for two purposes, one of which is to assist in rearrangement and the other for migrants. Land purchased under Section 27 cannot be used to give allotments to existing uneconomic holders; it can be used to assist in rearrangement or for the purposes of migrants. I am just as dissatisfied as the Deputies who have spoken on the question, but let me say that this was a new power which the Land Commission got under the 1950 Act and the Land Commission were right to proceed with caution in the handling of it. One thing which the Land Commission, or, for that matter, any other Department of State, must not do is to upset the market in relation to any commodity, including land, and while I should like to see the Land Commission taking more advantage of Section 27—and I have already asked them to do so for the coming year and to spend the full amount in the sub-head, if possible—a good deal will depend on the success or failure of the negotiations at each particular sale, either by public auction or private treaty.
Deputy Kennedy made a particularly savage attack on the officials of the Land Commission which, I think, was wholly unwarranted and which, when I examined into it, I found not to have a shred of truth in it. He said that the staff, indoor and outdoor, were not pulling their weight. I do not know what he meant by that—whether it was that there is redundancy in the staff, on the one hand, or that the staff, indoor and outdoor, were a crowd of lazy idlers who were determined not to do their work—but it would be of immense help to me, when Deputies make statements like that, if they would substantiate them with some kind of proof. As I said at the outset of my remarks, it is not good enough to make attacks against people without giving some little shred of proof, under the privileges of this House, under which Deputies cannot be taken into court for slander. It is not helping to improve the opinion which the public have of Parliament when statements like that are made without any foundation being shown for them. We should stick as near to the truth as possible and preserve a little decency in public life.
Deputy Kennedy also said that tenants who got additions to their holdings were recreating the problem of congestion by building houses on them. I am not too clear about what he meant, unless he was referring to subsequent subdivision of these holdings. The Land Commission watch subdivision very closely. They will allow subdivision of a holding in a case where a small area is bought for a site for a house and where the subdivision means that each portion of the holding is being sold to somebody, so that no new uneconomic holding is created, and if the Deputy knows of any cases in which fresh congestion is being created by the misuse of the power of subdivision, I should be very glad to hear of it, because the officials in charge of that work are very keen on it and the Land Commission will not sanction anything like that. They have refused myself to sanction it and I am sure that there is not a Deputy from a rural district who has not approached them on matters like that and who has not been turned down. It is a statutory obligation not to recreate congestion and I should be very surprised if it was happening.
Deputy Kennedy also referred to the Hempenstall estate at Ballinascary and said that the fences were not completed. This estate was divided in 1937 and the fences were as good as the fences the Land Commission make on every estate. A pump was sunk in 1941 for the benefit of the tenants and it was left in perfect working order. I have been wondering whether all the tenants there and Deputy Kennedy had turned themselves into Rip Van Winkles, had slept for the past 18 years, and had wakened up to find the fences demolished and all these nice little plums kept for throwing into my lap when I took office. The fences were made in good condition at that time and the pump was in perfect working order. The Land Commission will not spend public money on the repairing of these fences because the very least a man who gets a new holding, ready fenced, might do is to bestir himself and look after what he has got, as does any other tenant farmer in the country who never gets any help from the State.
Deputy Moher referred to the "terrible wail from the West". There is not a wail from the West and once again, Deputy Moher, who is a new Deputy, might have acquainted himself better with the facts before speaking of this wail from the West. The Minister will hear a little bit of a wail from the East when migrants go up there, so that there are two wails, but the Deputy comes from a non-congested constituency and he and his people should count themselves very lucky for that reason. It is not at all because of a wail from the West. Our flight from the land is greatest where congestion is greatest and I for one do not blame these people for going, if the Land Commission and other State Departments do not do something to assist them. I will not be the one to ask these boys and girls to waste the best years of their lives in a useless occupation, but, if the fault lies with anybody, it lies with us and not with these people who are going.
Many Deputies mentioned and inquired about the size of the outstanding congestion problem. That is not at all an easy issue and let me say straightway that the size of a holding is no guide as to whether it is economic or not; in fact, the rateable valuation may not itself be a good index. Current valuations were made at a time when economic conditions differed greatly from the present and in many cases changed circumstances have altered the real values of the holdings. Thus, conditions vary so widely in different areas that a holding of £5 valuation in one district may be equal in productive value to one of £10 or more elsewhere. I myself know farms of £6 or £7 valuation which are regarded as economic, while I am sure Clare Deputies will agree that some of the corcass holdings in that county are of doubtful economy, although valued at £20.
Apart from this point, it must be obvious to anyone who has given serious consideration to the problem that size and valuation may be a most erratic guide. Surely Deputy Burke will agree that a 12 acre holding in North Dublin which is used for market gardening is economic. Local conditions are an ever present factor in deciding the extent of the problem. Along the western seaboard, there are thousands of smallholders dependent on the land for their livelihood. They gather a harvest from the land, another from the sea and a third from the hire of their strong arms. They have a three-way economy which gives them added security. They all have not a comfortable living, by any means, but their circumstances are far better than those of the smallholder who is entirely dependent on his few acres for an existence. These are some of the many matters which have to be considered in reaching a decision as to the extent of the task.
Many Deputies also referred to the available pool of land as if there were some fixed area or areas on which the Land Commission could concentrate to the exclusion of others. That is not so, and it is quite impossible to be definite as to what area is available for acquisition; the area changes from year to year and will continue to do so as long as men are men and the natural order remains unchanged. Farms are now available which could not be acquired two years ago, while farms, which could be taken over this year, but for one reason or another escape the net, may for all time remain outside the scope of the Land Commission's power of acquisition. I for one will not try to prophesy what area can be acquired.
Deputies have also referred to the slowness of acquisition and I want to say straightway—and let others realise it, too—that compulsory acquisition is a business that moves along the line of most resistance rather than of least resistance. In conferring on the Land Commission powers of compulsory acquisition, the Oireachtas, in the Land Act delivered to the Land Commission to administer, was anxious to prescribe that the State's right of expropriation should be strictly guarded and limited, and the Oireachtas no doubt did so in order to prevent the possibility of injustice or hardship and to preserve as far as possible, consistent with the safety and well-being of the community, the rights and freedom of the individual citizen.
Accordingly, the powers for expropriation of landholders granted to the Land Commission are carefully defined by statute and governed by rule. Under the Land Acts, every obligatory purchase of land by the Land Commission is subject to a published certificate of the object and statutory basis of acquisition and allowance is made for objections which are duly heard in the Land Commission Court and adjudged on the evidence.
Appeals on price or points of law are heard by the Appeal Tribunal and over all is the right of recourse to the ordinary courts on points of law. In law and practice the existing legislative safeguards constitute complete security against hasty action and I have no apology to make for them. On the contrary, I endorse these safeguards and I have said before in this House and I now repeat that I would not by any means advocate speeding up the work of acquisition at the expense of lessening the rights of private ownership of a single individual in this country. Deputies will have to remember that before the Land Commission can find land to give to one man they must first take it from another and they must take into account justice to both sides and not merely to one side.
The unfinished land settlement policy is confined to the relief of congestion and I would like to see it divorced completely from Party politics. My one desire is to improve the conditions of the congests and the deserving small farmers and I will be satisfied to be judged by my success in that direction. Last year nearly 2,000 congests and smallholders had their lot improved and my immediate task is to increase that number. To achieve this end I earnestly appeal to all Deputies for their full co-operation. Deputies in the congested areas can help by encouraging tenants to accept rearrangement schemes while those in the Midlands could be particularly useful by discouraging local opposition to migrants.
This is a national problem which must be looked on from the overall and not from the local viewpoint. It must be remembered that for every tenant who is migrated two or three of the remaining congests have their position improved. The congests have been aptly called the salt of the earth; they love the land and it is that love of the land which has sustained them in their constant struggle. Many of their holdings are reclaimed from moor and mountain and it entails constant effort and hard work to withstand the inroads of nature. The congests are inured to hard work and striving, and the tenacity with which they have clung to their little holdings could have no source other than a love of the land and the joy of working in the open fields pitting their strength and industry against nature and adverse conditions. These people are deserving of encouragement and being virile and industrious will make the fullest use of any land they get. From my own personal knowledge of the problem I look on the cost of relieving congestion merely as a long-term investment which will be amply repaid by increased production and prosperity.
The Land Commission is creating permanent homesteads with good amenities and a secure basis of livelihood from land and is thus performing a service of paramount importance to and for the people.
