To those who would urge that I should hand over control of game development, I want to make it clear that I am not prepared to give exclusive jurisdiction or right of consultation to any particular body to the exclusion of all others. Even yet, the time is not ripe to establish a national game authority. I am confident that, in present circumstances, the game movement can best develop on a county or regional basis — with due regard to different local conditions and irrespective of the loyalties or affiliations of the various game councils.
Having dealt at some length with the major provisions of the Estimate, it is scarcely necessary to comment on the few remaining subheads which are either unchanged from last year or merely self-explanatory token provisions. I shall, therefore, continue with a review of the activities of the Land Commission during the year ended 31st March last. While some of the returns are still provisional, they are unlikely to differ to any appreciable extent from the final statistics when they become available.
I propose to deal with tenanted land first. During the year ended 31st March last, a total of 1,298 tenanted holdings were revested in tenant purchasers. By 31st March last, on estates purchased under the Land Acts, 1923-54, the number of tenanted holdings pending for vesting in tenants was reduced to less than 7,000. In addition, there were about 2,300 holdings on estates of the former Congested Districts Board for which land purchase proceedings had still to be concluded. The total number of holdings, under all Land Acts, outstanding for vesting in tenants at 31st March, 1962, therefore, was approximately 9,300 — out of an original aggregate of some 400,000 tenancies. These difficult residual cases are situated almost entirely in the congested districts. As a substantial proportion of them requires rearrangement, enlargement or general improvement prior to vesting, the work involved in dealing with them is necessarily tedious but they are being disposed of as rapidly as circumstances permit.
On the untenanted land side, the acceleration in land acquisition to which I referred last year, resulting from the provision by the Government of substantially increased funds, both in bonds and in cash, was maintained during the year. With a view to considering the initiation of acquisition, purchase or resumption proceedings, an aggregate area of 70,000 acres was inspected by the Land Commission while proceedings were, in fact, instituted in respect of some 30,000 acres. The aggregate area taken over for division during the year exceeded 32,000 acres and included a number of large properties such as the Harper Estate in County Laois, the Legge-Burke and de Stacpoole Estate in County Meath and the McEnery Estate in County Kilkenny. The Charteris Estate in County Tipperary was purchased and possession was taken recently.
At 31st March last, acquisition proceedings were pending in respect of a total area of 42,260 acres. With these substantial acreages, acquired and "in the machine," there is good reason for being optimistic about land settlement prospects in the immediate future. During the year ended 31st March last, an area of upwards of 38,000 acres was distributed amongst 2,050 allottees, including the enlargement of some 1,100 uneconomic holdings.
The results for the year in the sphere of rearrangement were very good. In all, some 520 fragmented holdings were rearranged, bringing the total number of such holdings dealt with, since 1950, up to about 5,750. Rearrangement work is a very delicately-poised business calling for endless tact and patience on the part of the outdoor staff of the Land Commission engaged in it. Moreover, the work involved inevitably tends to become more difficult as the number of outstanding cases diminishes with each year's results. It is essential, therefore, if the successful implementation of rearrangement schemes is to continue, that tenants concerned should co-operate fully with the Land Commission's proposals. These schemes have so far operated entirely on a voluntary basis and are designed primarily for the tenants' benefit. It is, therefore, clearly in the tenants' own interests to ensure, as far as possible, that the schemes are not hampered by excessive demands or obstructive tactics by participants.
I have said that, so far, these schemes have been operated entirely on a voluntary basis: I cannot promise that it will remain so and I do not promise it for I am hearing of instances of obstruction. The fact is that some tenants, always few in number in relation to any given scheme, by their unhelpful and unco-operative attitude prevent the Land Commission from putting the rearrangement scheme into effect, there-by depriving, not only themselves, but all those tenants who were disposed to accept, of the substantial benefits and advantages of the scheme.
Migration is, of course, an inseparable feature of the rearrangement programme. To make available to the Land Commission the additional land required for rearrangement of inter-mixed holdings, it is invariably necessary to migrate some tenants from the particular area being resettled to new holdings elsewhere. During the year ended 31st March last, 68 migrations were effected. While this number fell short of the previous year's record results, it would undoubtedly have been much higher were it not for building difficulties arising from the cement strike encountered during the year and which had the effect of delaying the completion of dwelling-houses and other buildings on new holdings approved for migrants. As a result, the migration programme for the financial year was somewhat behind schedule but this has been compensated for to a large extent by the fact that, even in the past nine weeks, 40 additional migrants have been installed in their new holdings.
Building work generally during the past year was adversely affected by two factors, namely poor weather conditions and the cement shortage. In the circumstances, I consider the completion, by or with financial assistance from the Land Commission, of 139 new dwelling-houses and 213 new out-offices during the year ended 31st March, 1962, very creditable. In addition, 17 dwelling-houses were reconstructed.
As I announced last year, advances up to £200 — irrespective of the amount of the annuity payable by the applicant —are now available from the Land Commission to supplement grants made by the Department of Local Government for the construction of new dwelling-houses. During the past year, 34 such advances were made by the Land Commission.
Progress has been made on the preparation of a range of new building plans of modern design for Land Commission operations. However, until such time as these plans have been fully considered, it has been decided as an interim measure that, wherever practicable, the Land Commission will adopt, with certain essential modifications, one of the modern dwellinghouse plans used by the Department of Local Government.
The Land Commission are particularly anxious to ensure that tenants and allottees have satisfactory water facilities for farming and domestic purposes. The provision of water supplies is, therefore, an important facet of their activities. Four machines owned by the Land Commission are constantly engaged in this work but, in an effort to keep abreast of heavy and urgent commitments, it has been found necessary to engage well-boring contractors to augment output by the Land Commission machinery. In all, 106 wells were completed during the past year and this aspect of the work will continue to be expedited to the utmost.
I have already referred to the revesting of tenanted land by the Land Commission during the year ended 31st March last. I should also say that satisfactory progress was made on the equally important work of vesting allotments of untenanted land in the allottees. In all, 4,635 properties, consisting of holdings, parcels and rights of turbary were vested in tenants and allottees in the course of the year.
The position regarding payment of annuities continues satisfactory. Out of a total collectable amount of over £70¾ millions, since 1933, the arrear at 31st March, 1962, amounted to £139,564— which represents a 99.98 per cent. successful collection. It is only right that I should take this opportunity to compliment the farming community on their remarkable record of annuity payment.
Progress continued during the year ended 31st March last on the Land Commission scheme of resettlements out of the areas of high flood risk in the Shannon Valley, in Counties Roscommon, Galway, Westmeath and Offaly. The scheme is now in its final stage. As has been made clear on previous occasions, this is not a scheme of flood control; rather is it aimed at affording relief, as far as practicable, from the hazards of flooding by the erection of new buildings on higher sites, the reconstruction of existing buildings in suitable cases and the provision, where necessary, of dry stands for stock in times of abnormal flooding.
The following is a summary of progress under the scheme up to a recent date:— work on 49 dwelling-houses and 50 out-offices has been completed by the Land Commission. A further 6 dwelling-houses and 4 out-offices are at present under construction while work is expected to commence shortly on the erection of 4 dwelling-houses and 6 out-offices. The allotment of dry stands for stock in 31 cases has necessitated the migration of 6 landowners and their resettlement on new holdings elsewhere. The cost of the scheme is being borne by the National Development Fund and, up to a recent date, total expenditure has amounted to approximately £105,000.
It is regrettable that despite my previous appeals for co-operation a few eligible participants still persist in withholding their co-operation from the scheme. I find it difficult to understand their attitude. I must repeat that there can be no question whatsoever of the Land Commission expending public money on the construction or repair of buildings on sites which are liable to flooding. Consequently, if the parties concerned do not fall into line with the Land Commission proposals, the scheme will have to be concluded without them; any future losses incurred by them through flooding will be entirely their own fault, and no amount of journalistic coverage will be allowed to arouse sympathy for them. Perhaps, even at this late stage, these parties might reconsider their attitude and co-operate in a project which is being arranged specially for their benefit at public expense.
Deputies will recollect that the Finance Act, 1961, contained provivisions whereby the Revenue Commissioners would keep the Land Commission informed regarding property purchases or leases in this country by non-national interests. Since 1st August, 1961, particulars of such transactions — apart from those relating to urban properties or residential non-urban properties with less than 5 acres of land — are being recorded in a register kept by the Land Commission under the procedure authorised by Sections 33, 34 and 35 of the Finance Act, 1961.
These arrangements, which are working satisfactorily, permit a ready assessment of the overall statistical position. From 1st August, 1961, up to a recent date, the total area recorded as having been purchased or leased by non-nationals — and on which the 25 per cent. rate of Stamp Duty had been paid — was 4,580 acres, comprising 56 properties, some of which are small units. In addition, 686 acres, involving 56 transactions, were acquired for purposes of industry other than agriculture; and 1,131 acres, comprising 14 transactions, were acquired for other purposes but exempted from duty under the relevant exemption sections of the Finance Act, 1961.
I am satisfied that the measures taken by the Government to ensure that the land settlement programme is not hampered by the indiscriminate purchase of agricultural land in this country by non-nationals are adequate. I think the foregoing statistics, which relate to a period of ten months, will enable the subject of land purchases in Ireland by foreigners to be viewed in its true perspective and also allay the anxiety and emotion formerly expressed in some quarters regarding this very sensitive business. It is good to get back to the language of fact, instead of emotive incantation, about this subject.
I should like to refer now to the recent Report by the Inter-Departmental Committee on the Problems of Small Western Farms. This important report concerns many aspects of the work of the Land Commission and I am at present examining its contents in detail. It will be appreciated, however, that until I have concluded my examination I will not be in a position to indicate what action will be feasible in relation to the various suggestions affecting the Land Commission contained in the report.
I believe changes in the current system are now desirable to meet the challenges emerging in this day and age. There are certain ideas under consideration on which final decisions by the Government have not been made and on which I and the Government would like to encourage public discussion before proposing legislation to the Dáil.
At this stage I do not propose to do more than refer to the report in a general way. There is one aspect of it, in particular, to which I have been giving a good deal of thought. This is the suggestion that Land Commission policy in relation to the size of the standard holding should be reviewed. I have often questioned the wisdom of the expression "standard holding" in the context of the land settlement programme. It seems to suggest that there is an inflexible rigidity in the implementation of land division policy and that the Land Commission wishes to force allottees into some unnatural conformity. In actual fact, of course, this is not the case at all. It occurs to me, however, that if we were to get away from possible misconceptions of this kind and concentrate more on the concept of achieving a viable farm unit in all parts of the country, including the West, we might be approaching the subject in a more realistic fashion.
As Deputies will be aware, the aim of the Land Commission, in non-congested areas, has been to create a unit of 33 acres of first-class land or its equivalent in larger acreage of land of mixed quality. The view is held — and I certainly subscribe to it — that there is no reason why such a holding, properly worked and with the owner availing himself freely of the local agricultural advisory services, should not afford a decent livelihood to a man and his family. Indeed, it is a remarkable thing that most of the prize-winners in competitions sponsored by farming organisations come from holdings of this size or even less. In this connection, also, it may be worth mentioning that no less an authority than Dr. Mansholt is on record to the effect that more than two-thirds of the farms in the EEC are less than 25 acres in area.
I should like to dispel the notion that in non-congested areas the Land Commission operate in such a way as to carve out holdings of 33 acres of good land and no more: in practice, this just does not happen. The newly-created holdings almost invariably comprise a mixture of good and inferior land, sometimes far in excess of this acreage. By way of illustration, I might mention that the average size of holding allotted to migrants during the past decade was in the region of 44 acres, the land usually being of varied quality.
In the light of this, I cannot envisage much justifiable criticism in regard to the size of Land Commission holdings in non-congested areas. If an increase should prove warranted, then, in my view, a modest increase seems to be the most that is necessary; but let me say that I would welcome the views and opinions of Deputies on this topic and I shall deem it a privilege to have them. It may be that the present standard as such is good but not the best and I do not want to make the good the enemy of the best, especially in the competitive era that is before us. As I see it, however, the real problem exists in the size of holdings provided by the Land Commission in congested areas.
In these areas a practice was evolved by the Land Commission of giving a number of very small additions to tenants in the immediate neighbourhood of the land being divided. This has led inevitably to the creation of lower standard units for farms in the West than for other districts. It has also led to the position that there are many land units upon which farming can only be operated at subsistence level or less than subsistence level by the tenants concerned. There is no doubt that great and ameliorative work has been done by the Land Commission in these areas. The fact remains, however, that in many instances viable farming units were not created and the individual recipients of the many fragments of divided land were still left in the position that they had to seek employment otherwise than on the land for three or four months of the year.
It is my personal view that we can no longer afford to have different standard units in different parts of the country. I further feel that the time has arrived when the national policy should be to create a viable unit, irrespective of other considerations, so that where land division or rearrangement takes place in the congested areas the aim should be as far as possible to create viable units of land.
I want the House clearly to understand what this change of policy would entail. It would mean that, where formerly on the division of land seven or eight people within a mile radius would have got additions, under the new policy as envisaged perhaps only two or three would benefit. The position, however, of these two or three would be that they would be dealt with for all time. If any of them failed individually, as some people will in all walks of life, we cannot say that it was because they did not have the wherewithal to succeed.
We have come to a time, and especially in the concept of the EEC, in which farming or the utilisation of land is a business, and a highly specialised and competitive one at that. It is utterly unrealistic in 1962 to think that men and women in the West of Ireland are prepared to accept the standard of living of their grandfathers or even of their fathers on land units upon which their forefathers were compelled to exist during the famine times. Many of the armchair critics who talk about emigration from the West would not survive on one of these £5 valuation holdings for 48 hours.
Our rural society is based on the family farm. This is in accord with the sociological concepts underlying the agricultural policy of the European Economic Community. Indeed, it will be recalled that the Taoiseach in his address to the Ministers of the Governments of Members States at Brussels in January last, referred to this matter and stressed the appeal which the emphasis placed by the Community on the maintenance of viable family farms had for the Irish people. Surely, the establishment of viable family units is as necessary in Western areas as it is in the East and South?
I should like to see a new concept of the family farm established for the whole country — a concept which would not be governed by any precise standard of size but, rather, one which would permit a variation in acreage and quality depending on the type of locality concerned and the farming pattern followed there. It would be a farm capable of providing a hardworking, thrifty family with a decent living. In some areas, where an abundance of prime land is available, the farm might comprise as little as 35 acres: in other areas, where mixed quality land predominates, it might comprise up to 55 acres. But, on average, my farm concept would be in the region of 40 to 45 acres of allpurpose land.
With the foregoing concept in mind, my personal view is that, in future, wherever practicable, new or enlarged holdings in Western areas should possess the potential for as good a livelihood as the typical farm unit created elsewhere in the country. I realise, of course, only too well that there are in the West some pockets of intense congestion where application of this concept would be quite impracticable in present circumstances but I feel that a start should be made by establishing the general idea that, where full-time farm enterprises are involved, the small western farm should, to the utmost extent practicable, be brought up to the level of its counterpart in the East or South of the country.
With a view to catering for those districts where the congestion problem is most intractable, it seems to me that special treatment will be necessary. What form this should take is not yet quite clear. Perhaps a measure of control of land sales within defined or scheduled areas, so as to prevent the agglomeration of holdings by non-agriculturalists, might help the Land Commission's efforts towards securing an improvement in the land structure in these areas; certainly my thinking is running in the direction of formulating such control and, again, that is a subject on which I would invite the views of Deputies.
The Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee suggests that the Land Commission should take power to control the undesirable agglomeration of holdings by private individuals or concerns. I believe that this proposition is worthy of examination, with particular reference to the congested areas. I feel, however, there is no practical way of achieving this objective without providing that the Land Commission's consent would be necessary to the sale of any land in a congested area or an area that would be scheduled by the Land Commission.
This would mean, in effect, that the Land Commission would have to approve of the purchaser of any land in such areas. I should like Deputies to understand that, generally speaking, this is already the law where the subdivision of land is concerned. In such cases, Land Commission consent to the subdivision is necessary and, if the subdivision is for the purpose of selling a portion of the holding, it means that the Land Commission do in fact approve the purchaser. Many Deputies will have the experience of instances in which the Land Commission have refused their consent to the subdivision on the ground that uneconomic holdings would be created.
The proposition, therefore, that the sale of land in congested areas, where uneconomic holdings abound, should be prohibited except with the consent of the Land Commission is not as revolutionary as it first appears. In many Continental countries there are very strict laws as to who may acquire land. These laws are, in the main, designed to ensure that those who get land are fully equipped, technically and otherwise, to make the very best and intensive use of it. While we have in the West a continuous pattern of consolidation going on whereby small holdings are amalgamated, we also have the agglomeration of land in the hands of people whose livelihoods are not dependent on farming at all. These people, in the main, are only concerned with the easiest or most convenient form of land user.
I, therefore, think the time has come to ensure that, particularly in the congested areas, the vendors of land there would require the Land Commission's consent to the sale. It will be appreciated that such a procedure would also ensure that the Land Commission would be aware of any land coming on the market that might be suitable for their purposes for the relief of congestion.
I referred to the law in other countries and I should like to touch briefly on one aspect of this subject here. Small farmers in the West are notoriously slow in making their wills. Many of us have experienced the appalling mess that is left by intestate landowners there. The son who is staying on the farm is in complete insecurity as far as the law is concerned for a minimum of 12 years — and in many cases for 20 years or more — from the date of the death of his father. This is a great dis-incentive for the young man who finds himself in this position. He is afraid to make any capital investment or improvements because some member of the family in England, America or Australia may stake his claim in years to come and scll him out. This position has, in many instances to my knowledge, led to bad land user and ultimate emigration. I accordingly feel that this aspect of the land problem in the West deserves examination and consideration.
Congestion is in some cases in the West aggravated by the existence of intermixed and rundale conditions. We have now reached the really hard core of this problem. The rundale estates that are left are, in the main, estates in respect of which the Land Commission have failed to make progress due to the lack of co-operation of the tenants concerned. In some cases where it is necessary to migrate, say, four tenants from such an estate, nobody is willing to go. In other cases where agreement for a rearrangement scheme is achieved amongst 80 per cent. of those concerned, there are one or two odd men out who will not co-operate and thus make the execution of the rearrangement scheme impossible. Again, in some of these cases, schemes are held up by old people or aged recalcitrant bachelors whose land may be essential for the completion of a successful rearrangement.
As an inducement to these people perhaps it would be desirable to have the power to give them a life annuity and leave them in occupation of their houses while they live, on condition that they would make available the rest of their land for Land Commission purposes. A general suggestion on these lines has been made in the Inter - Departmental Committee's Report to which I have referred. Whatever about the general application of such a measure, I feel it would be feasible, and indeed needed, in dealing with the hard core of rundale and inter-mixed estates which are left. In order to anticipate argument, I concede immediately that if I took this power it would be necessary to amend the old age pension code so that the Land Commission life annuity would not preclude the recipient from qualification for the old age pension. If this were not done, the new weapon as an inducement would be useless.
Let me again emphasise that the worst of our land slums in the West are comprised in these rundale and inter-mixed estates. While I am loath to advocate compulsory powers for the solution of this problem, I think that in special cases, where even the new inducements would fail, some form of compulsion might be justifiable. If I cite the extreme example of nine tenants being prepared to accept a scheme and there is one impossible man whom you will not lead or drive, there should be some method of dealing with him so that he cannot for all time hold up the progress of his neighbours. It may be that in such a case, when everything else failed, compulsory powers should be invoked.
A further suggestion which I should like the House to consider, is a power to enable a man to solve his own congestion problem. For instance, should the Land Commission have power to schedule a particular village or townland where there is a pocket of congestion? They know already it is necessary to take two tenants out of that pocket in order to leave the remaining tenants with viable land units. It could be desirable that the Land Commission be free to go to two progressive young farmers in that particular pocket and say: "If you go out and purchase an economic holding on your own and leave your own holding to the Land Commission we will pay you £X to enable you to do so." I make this suggestion not in substitution for but in addition to the other powers I have outlined for discussion by the House.
The Report has confirmed a view which I had formed earlier on the general problem of western congestion. I have become convinced that what is needed at this stage in the development of land reform is a greatly accelerated migration programme from the congested to the non-congested districts. I would visualise doubling, or even trebling, the number of such migrants so that each year's programme would make a much more pronounced impact than at present on the remaining areas of congestion.
This, of course, automatically poses the problem of acquiring more land to provide the additional new holdings for migrants. Whilst Section 27 of the Land Act, 1950, which enables the Land Commission to purchase land for cash in certain cases, is an instrument with which, as it stands, I have never been satisfied, nevertheless, an extension of the aims and scope of the section might go some distance towards achieving the accelerated migration programme to which I have referred. I am arranging for an overhaul of the section which will give it extra teeth.
If the Dáil gave such extra power as visualised here, I feel that the Land Commission should be geared to a massive migration programme with the continuous target of, say, 200 families a year. I think I should also point out the other side of what this programme would entail. It would mean in practice the virtual exclusion of all categories except migrants or genuine uneconomic holders in the immediate vicinity of the lands acquired in the East and South of the country. I have emphasised time and again that there is not enough land in this country to solve the congestion problem in the West unless we confine land division to those already on uneconomic holdings. Indeed, it is extremely doubtful whether there is nearly enough land now available to solve the problem even if the land acquired is confined solely to the categories mentioned. I am personally convinced that unless we now make it the national aim to move on the lines I have suggested in dealing with the land remaining to be acquired in the country, we will not make the impact on the problems of Western small farms that time and national economic requirements dictate.
These are but some of the matters which are currently exercising my mind as a result of the Small Farms Committee's Report. However, they will necessarily require much closer study before positive action can be taken regarding them. I am hopeful, however, that these and other means may from the basis for the final elimination of congestion within the foreseeable future and for the creation throughout the whole country of a much improved land structure aimed at enhancing the economy generally and capable of surviving the testing conditions, in the agricultural sphere, which may be expected to emerge from current developments in Europe.
I would like here to stress the urgency of the Land Commission's work by reason of our prospective membership of the EEC so as to create viable farm units. Deputies will appreciate that if we do enter the Common Market there are a number of limitations which we may have to accept in the form of farm support by way of subsidy which we can provide. It is therefore very necessary and urgent that we reassess the whole picture of our land structure here. I feel that the national aim should be, in so far as it is feasible, to provide viable units of land for those upon them which would be at least equal to the land units occupied by our partners in the Common Market.
There are many other ancillary propositions to those which I have outlined which I feel might be helpful in the solution of the problems confronting us. I feel, however, that a discussion by the Dáil on the various matters to which I have referred would be most helpful to me before I come to any final conclusion. I would also like to make it clear that I am not to be taken as having rejected any of the suggestions made in the Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee by virtue of the fact that I have not specifically referred to them. I have given considerable thought and study to this complex problem and I shall sincerely welcome the views and suggestions of every Deputy on the matters to which I have referred.
Before concluding, I should like to express my appreciation of the excellent work done by the staff of the Land Commission, both indoor and outdoor, during the year ended 31st March last.
I recommend the current Estimate with confidence and I will be interested to hear the views of Deputies from all sides of the House.
