I move:—
That a sum not exceeding £1,170,630 be granted to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1958, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Offices of the Minister for Lands and of the Irish Land Commission (44 & 45 Vict., c. 49, sec. 46, and c. 71, sec. 4; 48 & 49 Vict., c. 73, secs. 17, 18 and 20; 54 & 55 Vict., c. 48; 3 Edw. 7, c. 37; 7 Edw. 7, c. 38 and c. 56; 9 Edw. 7, c. 42; Nos. 27 and 42 of 1923; No. 25 of 1925; No. 11 of 1926; No. 19 of 1927; No. 31 of 1929; No. 11 of 1931; Nos. 33 and 38 of 1933; No. 11 of 1934; No. 41 of 1936; No. 26 of 1939; No. 12 of 1946; No. 25 of 1949; No. 16 of 1950; No. 18 of 1953; and No. 21 of 1954).
As Deputies are aware, this year's Estimate for Lands was printed before the present Government took office. In moving this Estimate, I should say, therefore, that, having had no hand in its construction, I am not responsible for the contents of the Estimate on this occasion. Within the limited time available, I have begun a thorough examination into the policy and working of the Land Commission, but it is too early yet to have taken decisions on such major changes as may be needed. When the next Estimate comes around, I expect to be in a better position to give to Deputies an over-all analysis.
On this occasion, therefore, I propose to begin with an explanation of the salient points of the Estimate, as it has been framed under my predecessor and to go on next into some details of the Land Commission's activities and immediate programme, and to conclude with such broad matters of general interest as seem to call for special consideration on this occasion.
The gross Estimate of £2,203,055 for the current year shows a decrease of £8,326 on the gross total for last year. Despite the usual Civil Service incremental increases, sub-head A—for salaries, wages and allowances—shows a decrease of £1,142 largely due to a reduction of 13 in the number of indoor staff since last Estimate.
Sub-head, B—for travelling expenses —is reduced by £2,000 in the light of expenditure in recent years, namely, £31,000 during 1956-57 and £32,000 during 1955-56.
The increase of £3,000 in sub-head G is in respect of a possible increase in legal fees in connection with the recovery of annuities. Such fees are recoverable from defaulters and are appropriated-in-aid of the Vote via sub-head U (2).
Sub-heads H (1), H (2) and H (3) provide for making good deficiencies in the Land Bond Fund resulting from the statutory halving of annuities—which alone accounts for £706,000—and other aids to land purchase. These are statutory commitments authorised by various Land Acts from 1923 to 1953. More than 40 per cent. of the net Estimate is allocated to these three sub-heads. The progress being made in the land settlement programme results in the setting up of new annuities, necessitating additional provision under sub-head H (1) for Costs Fund, and H (3) for halving of annuities. This year it is expected that the halving of annuities will result in an increase of about £11,000 under sub-head H (3). This amount, together with an estimated increase of £200 under sub-head H (1), brings the total increase under this group of sub-heads to £11,200.
Sub-head I provides funds for the improvement of estates taken over for resettlement, including the erection and repair of buildings, the construction of roads, fences and drains, the development of turbary and other works. All such works are an essential part of land settlement schemes. Almost 31 per cent. of the net Estimate is allocated to this sub-head under which the expenditure last year amounted to £575,000. During the course of last year, this sub-head was subjected to an Exchequer economy of some £70,000 and its final content this year remains dependent on the Budget position. I am aware that in recent years there has been criticism of the dwellinghouses provided by the Land Commission. Some new housing designs have been under consideration, but before they are put into construction I wish to get the views of the Irish Countrywomen's Association which I know to be interested in the subject of rural housing.
It is occasionally necessary for the Land Commission to set up a maintenance fund, under the control of local trustees, to protect embankments or watercourses and the capital for this purpose is advanced out of sub-head N and repayable by tenant-purchasers. For the past two years, only a token provision was necessary but this year, provision has been included for an advance of £1,100 in anticipation of the need to set up a maintenance fund which is likely to arise during the year.
The purpose of sub-head Q is to make provision for deficiencies in the Local Loans Fund and Land Bond Fund which arise from the termination of old annuities on acquired lands. New purchase annuities based on current interest rates then become payable by the allottees. The charge to sub-head Q is recurring and cumulative and an increased provision of £600 is required for this year to meet new cases.
Under Section 27 of the Land Act, 1950, the Land Commission, to date, have purchased for cash in the open market a total of 48 holdings, comprising 1,900 acres, for a total price of some £50,000. Such transactions are financed out of sub-head R. Like sub-head I, this sub-head was subjected last year to an Exchequer economy of £12,000 and new purchases of this class were entirely suspended from July, 1956, onwards. In the current year, the volume of such transactions will likewise depend on the Budget position.
In the light of recent expenditure, there is a reduction of £1,500 in sub-head S, for gratuities to persons who may become displaced from employment on land through its acquisition. If fit to work land, these persons are eligible for allotments. The total expenditure on gratuities varies, there-fore, with the competency of the individuals who may become displaced. In all, 118 gratuities totalling £13,200 have been paid since this form of compensation was authorised by the Land Act, 1950.
As regards the other sub-heads, I think that detailed comment is scarcely necessary, as they are mostly unchanged from the previous year or self-explanatory.
As regards the general work of the Land Commission, progress continues to be made in the efforts to complete tenanted land purchase. Of 111,000 tenanted holdings which vested in the Land Commission since 1923, only some 13,000 now await vesting in the tenants. These constitute the really difficult residue of tenanted holdings. The revesting of tenanted land has now been completed in Counties Carlow and Longford and may be regarded as substantially concluded in the following ten additional counties, viz., Cavan, Kildare, Kilkenny, Laois, Limerick, Louth, Meath, Monaghan, Wexford and Wicklow. Over 11,000 of the tenanted holdings which remain outstanding for vesting are situated in the congested districts where existing policy requires the rearrangement by the Land Commission of intermixed and rundale holdings into compact and, as far as possible, economic units as a necessary pre-requisite to vesting. In addition, some 5,000 holdings being the current residue of the estates of the former Congested Districts Board, are in a similar condition.
As regards the land-settlement operations of the past year, the provisional returns show that the total area acquired, resumed or taken over was 27,646 acres, while an area of 27,883 acres was distributed amongst 1,450 allottees, who thereby had their standard of living improved. In addition, 860 families were provided with rights of turbary. Some 500 holdings, the bulk of which are situated in the western counties, were rearranged during the year. Expenditure on buildings, including the provision of 198 new dwellinghouses, amounted to over £240,000. On the vesting side, close on 7,000 properties consisting of holdings, parcels and rights of turbary were vested in tenants and allottees.
The position as regards collection of annuities is highly satisfactory. Arrears outstanding at the 31st March, 1957, amounted to £142,562 or approximately a quarter of 1 per cent. of the total amount collectable since 1933. The efficiency of the collection organisation may be gauged from the fact that the total cost of collection and ancillary work—including provision for overhead expenses, postage, etc. —works out at about 5 per cent. of the amount collected, notwithstanding that annuities generally were halved in 1933 and remain unchanged at a low level. Prompt payment of amount due to the Land Commission is to be encouraged as a contribution towards reduction of the cost of administration.
At this point, I propose to turn to the effect of the Land Commission vis-à-vis the general economic situation at present facing the country. In common with State Departments generally, the Land Commission can and must forthwith set about conditioning itself, within its own sphere of activity, to grapple with our economic problems, particularly our inadequate agricultural production.
An obvious question is: how can the Land Commission contribute to the solution of the interrelated problems of under-production and emigration? The view will be advanced that the Land Commission, operating a land-division programme geared to about 25,000 acres a year and involving an annual improvements expenditure limited to about £600,000, can make little impact on the disturbing aspects of our economy. It seems possible even on the basis of its current restricted programme, that the Land Commission, by focussing more attention on the user of allotments and ensuring that only the very best allottees are selected, can make a far greater impression than heretofore on the vital weaknesses in our economic structure.
In the period 1946-50, Land Commission policy required that allotments provided for certain categories of allottees, including congests, be systematically inspected for good husbandry prior to revesting in the allottees. This practice was discontinued in 1950. Inquiries made regarding user of allotments provided since that date cause me to fear that, while user is fairly satisfactory in most districts, an undue proportion of the land allotted in some counties is not used intensively. It should be clearly understood by all allottees that, henceforth, the Land Commission will adopt a firm attitude towards the inefficient working of allotments.
It is not too much to say that our entire economy will stand or fall by the use made of the land. An allottee should not regard his allotment as an outright gift by the State to be used good, bad or indifferently as he sees fit. On the contrary, he should consider himself specially privileged in being allotted land acquired with public money and distributed in trust for the entire nation and on the definite understanding that it will be worked to maximum capacity and so contribute to the general, well-being.
As regards congest applicants, there is widespread belief that they may be classified as good, medium or indifferent. It is obviously objectionable that good land should be wasted on indifferent applicants. In the past, when far more land was available for division, it is to be feared that in some instances allottees qualified for additional land by the mere accident of location, in other words, because their existing uneconomic holdings were situated convenient to the lands being divided. Presumably, the view was taken that an uneconomic holding, adjacent to an estate being divided, should get an enlargement even though the occupier's farming potentialities left much to be desired, the fervent hope apparently being that the next generation would bring about an improvement in working methods. The stage has now been reached, however, where the country may no longer be able to afford the luxury of seeing its dwindling reserve of good land divided amongst allottees who are not prepared to make the best possible use of it. The primary need of the moment being increased agricultural production, it follows that the problem to be studied is whether land divided by the Land Commission should be allotted only to agriculturists of proved ability, receptive to modern farming ideas and having the necessary energy and means to ensure increased production in the shortest possible time.
In speaking of the methods by which allottees are chosen I wish to take the opportunity of giving some assistance to Deputies who are so constantly approached by tenants seeking parcels of land on divided estates. As the years pass by, it is wise to repeat emphatically both the regulations and, what is more important, the unchanging strict tradition of the Land Commission. I intend to send Deputies with each letter a statement further emphasising these conditions so that no one can be in any doubt as to the position. Briefly, the position is that all eligible applicants living within one mile of an estate being divided are interviewed automatically by the inspector and each case is fully considered on its merits before the selection is made. The representations are superfluous; they do not add to the applicant's prospects in any way; the official fact-finding has to be carried out independently of any representations and in the last analysis these representations only delay the work of disposing of acquired lands. If Deputies feel that there are applicants whose case would not be considered but for their representations, I can state categorically that, in connection with many estates, highly eligible persons make no representations through third parties.
What is the position? For nearly every parcel of land, there are at least ten, if not 100 applicants. As Minister, I am precluded from advancing any one person's claim. If I attempted to interfere on political grounds, I would be favouring one supporter as against another in every case. I want to make it clear, beyond all doubt, that letters addressed to me will not have the slightest effect on the Land Commission, if I can prevent it.
Moreover, may I say that a very limited number of Deputies create a fever of impatience and by their attitude encourage rumours of corruption in my staff which inquiries over decades have proved to be groundless? The choice of allottees can always be interpreted by interested parties as being unwise or unjust. In many cases, the Land Commission cannot make a choice which is absolutely perfect and nothing the Minister can do could possibly effect any improvement on the sincere effort made by the Commissioners. Deputies recommend in most cases a good proportion of the applicants for a particular estate. As a result, apart from the automatic examination of the inspectors their representations cancel each other out.
In one case, an applicant entirely unsuitable from every standpoint was recommended by three Ministers and all the Deputies of the constituency. Last week, I investigated a case of alleged political discrimination and found, as usual, that the ascertained facts were totally at variance with the allegations and successive Ministers have found the same thing. Any allegations of unjust discrimination made by Deputies and signed by them will naturally be investigated, as will, of course, any other suggestions of partiality.
There are a few Deputies who haunt the Land Commission local offices and some bring deputations. This creates a chain reaction of intrigue and suspicion and I think the practice is undesirable.
It has been the practice, heretofore, to set out in the official list of applicants, the names of the persons recommending particular applicants. I do not suggest that these names influenced the Land Commission in any way, but I nevertheless regard this practice as futile and I have directed its discontinuance forthwith. I have carried out an inquiry into the effects of these solicited recommendations and I may cite a few examples. In one typical estate, 11 applicants who had not solicited recommendations, were successful, as compared with only five who had solicited recommendations. In another case, nine were successful without representations, as compared with only two on whose behalf representations were made. In yet another estate, six were successful without representations as compared with only three who had solicited recommendations. I could go on multiplying the examples. All this illustrates that pressure or representations do not achieve their objective. I have every confidence in the impartiality of the Land Commissioners.
I am much concerned about the criticism, which is often levelled against the Land Commission, that there is delay in the allotment of land taken over for division. It will be appreciated that in some cases, particular lands may have to be held over pending the acquisition of other lands with the laudable purpose of combining them in a comprehensive scheme. I want to assure the House, however, that so far as the staffing and monetary resources permit there will not in future be any avoidable delay in the allotment of acquired lands. I have already given special directions in relation to two of our largest counties with a view to the early disposal of unallotted areas.
The Land Commission can no longer, of course, count as they could in the 1930s, on getting large untenanted estates held by absentee owners. The average area of estates acquired nowadays is about 90 acres compared with an average of about 260 acres in 1935. As to the prospects for speeding up the acquisition process, it seems that the time which elapses, from the date of first inspection of an estate until the owner is eventually paid the purchase money, is often far too long. I intend to examine this matter fully to see whether this delay can be curtailed. I do know, however, that the Land Commission are not mainly to blame, and owners and their solicitors must accept their share of responsibility.
I am determined to be absolutely frank about land division so as to avoid raising false hopes. There is a limited pool of land available and it is not increasing. Successive Governments have confined the capital to what is possible and this does not increase as a result of agitation; it remains stable. Capital is now scarce as we have been busy for ten years raising our standards of living by using up savings. Capital must be spent to a greater extent on projects that will increase production immediately. If Deputies constantly lead deputations advocating division, they are giving the people concerned excessive hope that the particular estate is going to be divided. If their efforts were successful, some other estate in the same constituency would not be divided or division would be delayed.
Moreover, the total resources for land division are going to be and have been fairly distributed over all the counties and undue pressure from one county is not going to alter the balance. I have examined the acreage and this is true. Deputies can assist by giving accurate information on properties where no employment is given and discouraging agitation. I will receive any number of deputations from people who will tell me how the Land Commission inspectors can help to increase farm output by an average of 30 per cent. and get a market for the produce abroad, but I am not going to waste the time of small farmers by appearing to have power which I do not possess. So long as the Commissioners acquire land in a fair way, I am not going to influence them, even indirectly, to take over a particular farm, and that is that.
As this is the first Estimate to be laid before the House, it is well that I should say a few words of a general character. The economic situation has changed in the last ten years to so great an extent that each Estimate in future will have to be considered in relation to two factors which govern our future as a nation. The first is the necessity to reduce costs of production wherever possible, while maintaining services essential to our well being. The second is to see how any Government service can be modified to encourage greater profitable production.
The following inescapable, irrevocable facts face us all and it is no good blinding our eyes to realities. Production from land has increased at half the European rate since 1949 and is 16 per cent. above 1911. Only 10 per cent. of private and State capital resources has been invested in agriculture since the war.
The younger generation demands a higher standard of living than we can afford, unless our exports expand far more rapidly. Emigration offers an immediate reward. 1957 commercial farming requires more capital, more risk, more organised marketing, more confidence, more price stability, far greater technical knowledge. Unless our people are willing to take a long term view and unless there is a resurgence of national feeling we will not survive as a vigorous separate nation. The true definition of a patriot in 1957 is a man who wants our country to outsell foreign competitors by producing more at lower cost and making a reasonable profit. Every nation in Europe has gained prosperity this way.
The objective of the Land Commission is to settle as many families on the land as is practicable. There must be an addendum. "Practicable" means that the policy will result in the growth of high grade commercial farming, enabling families to remain in Ireland, providing more people with work in our towns.
Whatever our difficulties, we have got to find the markets. If the Land Commission spends money on land division and we continue to lose from £5 to £10 on every beast exported through out-of-date practices and other causes, we are wasting national capital and taxing for nothing.
Now may I say this? Enough progress has been made to prove we can do the job right. Our difficulties are due to our ignoring the basic needs, the use of science in production, postponing fundamental changes, spending our savings on non-essentials. We have all the courage and the character we require to make our country second to none as a producer of high quality.
Mass emigration has been solving the problem of congestion at so rapid a rate that the Land Commission activity must be reviewed in the face of realities. Figures are dull but they can be translated only too easily into human decisions and into movements of families.
Since 1946, 24,000 people, for example, have emigrated from Mayo or approximately 2,100 per year, while the Land Commission contribution, because of the difficulties involved, moves a few families per annum to relieve congestion and rearranges a few hundred holdings. The people who live on the small western farms no longer accept the Land Commission ideas about what constitutes an economic holding. The population is reducing rapidly and leaving the same income for the fewer to enjoy.
While great progress has been made in some directions, the greater prosperity of the nation has been largely caused by higher farm prices and by the mass emigration of over 100,000 people from our farms in a short period of time, leaving a higher income to be shared by very much smaller families. In fact, emigration has been making farms economic without enlargement. We tend to linger in the nineteenth century and to excuse our present state by references to history.
What is this world from which we must escape? Just the out-dated idea that a man's security and prosperity depend largely upon the number of acres he farms forgetting the science, capital and industry which he applies and above all his marketing conditions.
What are the hard unassailable facts revealed in the recent Farm Survey? In the north and western regions, where neither dairying, mushrooms nor market gardens alter the general income levels, one-third of the farmers on five to 15-acre farms make twice the net profit that the third in the lowest income group are making and the farms examined in this category did not consist of better land. This one-third earn £269 a year, a very small amount based on 12 acres.
The 15-30 acre farms are making more profit. One-third make £390 on 20 to 24 acres and the remainder much less. Two-thirds of these 20-24 acre farms make less profit than one-third of the 12-acre farms. A small number of 14-acre farms make £410 profit and a small number of 20-acre farms make over £500.
Then we reach the Land Commission enlarged holding in the 30-50 acre group. One-fifth of these farms make £560 per farm and the remainder very much less. Eighty per cent. of them make less profit than the best of the 24-acre farms make. Some 40-acre farmers in the North and West, not specialising in milk, are making about £850 profit.
I should make it clear that according to the Farm Survey explanatory memorandum, the farms selected for examination yield an income somewhere above the national average. The comparative variations can be regarded as having real value in assessing the problem of increasing profitability on farms of all sizes. These variations are very great indeed. The profits are higher in Leinster and Munster.
If we make comparison with Denmark, farmers big and small are producing one-third the output and making half the profit and we may note particularly that while the Danish large farmer produced like our own far less per acre, the profits made by the 25-acre farmer are far greater than here because of co-operative machinery and high capital investment.
In examining the Farm Survey one fact stands out. All the most profitable farms are using twice the amount of fertilisers provided for the others. The very high-profit farms purchase twice to three times the fertilisers of all others including the best in farms of all sizes. Of particular note, the more tillage undertaken the more the profit made on live stock sold and this without exception.
It is obvious that a great many 15-acre farms could become the equivalent of 30-acre farms in income-earned by using more fertilisers and little else. The future of Ireland depends not only on enlarging farms and resuming badly-used farm land but on promoting first-class, high-grade, scientifically-minded young farmers and everyone knows this to be true. If we could help the one-third of the farmers to achieve the output and the profit of the best third, some of the congestion, apart from the rundale problem, would settle itself.
With growing competition in foreign trade becoming ever fiercer, the farms that will prosper will be farms scientifically run; that will be the sole condition. They will be the go-ahead farmers and they will be able to add to their holdings, large or small.
What do we know about the farmers view of the economic farm? In spite of the Land Commission's work, consolidation is taking place so rapidly that the £10 standard, which is the standard adopted in the West, is being steadily abandoned. In 1931, there were 90,000 holdings of 15 to 30 acres. There are 83,000 now in spite of the rearrangements. There are just 1,000 more holdings of 30-50 acres than in 1931. However, much more important than this past record of consolidation is the future trend of land ownership now facing us and we cannot ignore the facts.
The small farmers are preparing for greater consolidation in future years. The number of farmers owning farms less than 30 acres has decreased from 150,000 in 1926 to 108,000 in 1951. The number of their sons and daughters living on the farms has decreased from 107,000 to 52,000. Since 1951 the exodus has been far more rapid.
What use is it pretending that the present policy is entirely satisfactory? About one-seventh of the people residing on small farms have another occupation than farming. State works, roadwork, forestry and unemployment assistance all provide additional income.
Setting a standard of £10 valuation in the West, as a family farm, is now open to question as the people do not do so themselves. In no country of Northern Europe does the Government say: "We consider a farm of 18 acres to be economic, because we will give the balance of income required in State employment." We have to face the fact that State and private capital can no longer be poured so lavishly into non-productive amenity employment and that, for example, the rural housing problem is nearly solved.
Next, I come to the most serious challenge we face. The limited progress made in farm production has been taking place largely on the larger farms and largely in Leinster and Munster.
All the facts available show that the farmers with large capital resources and modern machinery, close to the larger markets, have shown the major production since 1931 due in part to the growing of wheat. Hence my statement that whereas in Denmark small farmers make more profit per acre than big farmers, the smaller farmers here are losing ground, even though here, as in Denmark, they produce more than the bigger farmers. The total agricultural output is 14 per cent. above 1938. Munster and Leinster contribute a great part of the increase.
What are the conclusions to be derived from these studies? The Departments of Lands and Agriculture must concentrate their efforts on assisting the medium sized family farmer to progress, particularly in the West and North. For this, small farmers need capital, co-operative or planned marketing, more technical instruction, confidence and a belief in the future of agriculture. They need also to see in every parish farms renowned for their high output. Good farming must become the most discussed topic in every parish. We must face up to reality and recognise that a small farmer who receives a holding gets the equivalent of £1,000 to £2,000. This is a privilege accorded to only about 14 uneconomic land holders per thousand per year. It is too valuable a gift in our present state unless the result is to stimulate high grade commercial farming.
I should state that both the N.F.A. and Macra na Feirme and my predecessor have been thinking along these lines. No one could occupy my position without questioning previous policy. We are beginning a new age and we can forget a great deal of what we thought in 1921. The problem is inextricably associated with the whole of the land tenure system in this country.
Farmers in authority have made it clear that a young man should be able to inherit at a younger age or be able to buy a farm on hire-purchase. We alone in Europe have no long-term farm credit enabling a young man to purchase his family's interest in a farm or to purchase a farm for himself.
Few people have stressed the importance of bringing encouragement to the farmers in the North and West who, with many exceptions, are not able to keep pace with the modern age because they do not have the advantages of those living near Dublin and they have not been able to modernise to the same extent save for some simple basic implements or to find capital. In this we face a challenge. We must make up our minds realistically about the congested counties. We may do all that is possible by bringing tourists, starting industries, etc., but we must decide on a course that will help to bring these counties into the modern world of production and if this is impossible we must adopt a different policy.
The problem for us then is how to spend the portion of the Estimate devoted to land division in the most effective way. We must decide how to use the highly-trained Land Commission staff for this purpose. We must now consider whether to modify the present system or replace it.
At this stage, I can only say this: the system must change. It is outdated and the movements of our people in the last ten years afford complete justification for this statement.
In conclusion, may I emphasise that the facts point towards the value of the medium-sized holding? The number of live stock, pigs, sheep and cattle on every size of farm increases regularly as the tillage area increases and, with the exception of older cattle, this applies even to quite small farms. The output per acre on larger farms is very, very much lower than on smaller farms.
The Land Commission objective now must be to ensure that the expenditure achieves the maximum results in increasing output. In our present position, what we need most is to encourage the younger and energetic generation of farmers to go ahead and seek more technical knowledge on farming. We need to encourage greater respect for good farming.
In the examination of land division policy, we must not fall into the easy trap of generalising about the extreme congestion in the West. There are thousands of smallholders in the West whose income even under intensive farming methods is quite insufficient. Much of the land in certain areas is of very poor quality. The relief of acute congestion is a special issue although emigration is to some extent solving the problem with distressing rapidity.
All I have said is based on the problem as seen by me and a widely varied group of individuals and organisations in the country at large. With my present knowledge of Land Commission work, some time must elapse before the Government can consider possible modifications or changes in policy.
I will be most interested to hear the views of Deputies from every side of the House.
