Committee on Finance. - Vote 37—Lands (Resumed). – Dáil Éireann (17th Dáil) – Thursday, 30 May 1963

Committee on Finance. - Vote 37—Lands (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following motion:

"That the Estimate be referred back for reconsideration."

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

Last night I dealt with most of the points I intended to raise. The Minister referred to the fact that later on this year he hopes to present a new Land Bill to the House. I want to ask the Minister and his officials to make an effort to consult all interested parties before the introduction of that Bill, in order to avoid unwarranted criticism, misunderstanding or confusion, which would be likely to arise as a result of its introduction without serious thought or consideration. I make that suggestion because of the statement frequently uttered by the Minister in relation to the letting of lands in conacre.

I trust the Minister realises that, while a vast amount of land is set in conacre, he also realises that in many cases it is a necessity. There is the case of a widow who is left with a large young family, and in order to retain that land in her own ownership until the family reach an age at which they can work it, it may be necessary for her to set it on the conacre system. She may have to do so not only for a period of five years, but perhaps from ten to 15 years while her family are young and her circumstances require the letting of the land. There is the other case of a person who may be suffering from some physical disability, and who may not be able to concentrate on working his land to give himself a comfortable existence.

I trust that before the Bill is introduced the Minister will realise the difficulties of those people, and that he will consult the advisory section of the Department of Agriculture. I am sure he could get reports from the agricultural inspectors throughout the country. He might also consult with the Auctioneers Association who have first hand information and would be only too glad to place at the disposal of the Minister details of the domestic problems of those with whom they are in touch in the performance of their duties. I trust that the many aspects of this legislation will be fully gone into before the Bill is drafted, and I realise that the drafting of a Bill of this character is no easy task. For that reason I hope the Minister will not rush in a Bill without having given it the serious thought it deserves.

Last night the Minister told us that 11,000 acres were in the hands of aliens. Taking 50 acres as an economic holding, those 11,000 acres would provide holdings for at least 220 families. The Minister may say that that land is not good land but I venture to say that there are people in the west of Ireland and in parts of the south-west living on much worse land.

Mr. Calleary

Not in County Mayo.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

There are many people in parts of the midlands trying to eke out an existence on what may be described as cutaway bogland. We must consider the claims of our own applicants first but we have a land policy at the moment which is providing a considerable medium for gambling with our lands by people who have purchased it, not for love of the country but for what they hope to get out of it. While following that policy, we are depriving something like 220 families of a livelihood and in each of those families there may be five or six people. I hope that matter will be examined carefully and that the Government will take action before this country completely falls into the hands of this new type of landlord who is coming for the purpose of making all he can from the land. When the land is in an impoverished state and these people have made sufficient out of it, they will probably leave the country. The Land Commission should take a very serious view of this from this day forward and ensure that there is a more serious check on the purchase of land by this type of person.

Last night I was about to refer to the failure of the Land Commission in at least four instances to take what I feel would have been justified action. I refer to cases with which the Minister is already familiar. The first case is that of the Heath Estate which was formerly the excellent stud farm run by the Blake family. I know that the Land Commission hesitate to take over stud farms, and rightly so. I believe that if this farm were continued as a stud farm, the agitation that exists and claims of the local people would not be pressed. Those who were employed on the Blake Estate have lost their jobs and quite a number of people have had to leave the district. The Land Commission have agreed to review the position after a year but I feel there is no need for a long period to elapse before action is taken. The fact that it is no longer being used as a stud farm, the fact that there are local smallholders and uneconomic holders in the district, and a number of farmers' sons who are anxious to work the land, should justify action on the part of the Land Commission.

I hope the Land Commission will realise their responsibilities to the local people and will take suitable action and that the Heath Estate will be taken over in due course and divided amongst those best qualified in the area. The Minister tells us that there is ample money available for the purchase of these lands. I welcome the fact that the Land Commission are going into the public market and they should go in more extensively and purchase land for the common good. They will have the support and co-operation of those engaged in buying and selling land. Now that the Commission have funds available, they should, where they think it is warranted and feel they can perform their duty to the common good, exercise their rights in accordance with the Land Acts passed by this House and purchase lands for local people.

Another estate to which I want to refer is the Lyons Estate, The Island, Abbeyleix, where there are upwards of 40 genuine applicants, mostly small, uneconomic holders, many of whom have to pay from £20 to £30 per year for conacre in the district. There is a genuine case as to why action should be taken in regard to this estate. The matter was in the hands of the Land Commission for a considerable time and recently we found that the lands were offered for sale by public auction. The Commission have agreed to consider the matter but I understand they are not prepared to pay the amount decided upon by the Land Court. The price requested for those lands is not unreasonable, having regard to the quality of the land and to the fact that there are so many local applicants who are prepared to work the land.

I also suggest that suitable action should be taken in regard to the balance of the French Estate convenient to Ballybrittas, County Laois. There is a valuable amount of good land on this estate. It is surrounded by smallholders, practically every one of whom is compelled to take conacre to exist. If conacre were not available, these people would not be able to live in the countryside. Here we have another case in which the lands are set. The owner could not have any serious objection to the lands being acquired because they are the balance of an estate which was taken over some years ago. For one reason or another, the total estate was not then acquired. Having regard to the claims of the local people, I recommend that the Land Commission should take appropriate action.

The other estate to which I wish to refer is the Tonge Estate, near Daingean. Here, again, a very extensive portion of the land is set to one individual, privately, and the local people do not get an opportunity even of taking the lands by conacre. A very genuine case has been put forward by the Land Commission. The owner does not live in the district. This is a case where an effort should be made to purchase those lands at full market value so that the owner will have no grounds for complaint.

I am sure the minds of landowners are eased considerably because, as a result of the passage of an Act by this Parliament, owners can get full market value for land. Deputies should stress that very clearly and the Land Commission should make it understood. Everybody should know that it is not the policy of the Land Commission to endeavour to take any man's land under value. I could not and would not subscribe to taking any man's land without paying its full value. Therefore, when we are in a position, in accordance with the law, to pay full market value for land in all cases, we should ensure that no injustice whatever will be done to the owner of any land or any holding. It makes it considerably easier for the Land Commission to perform their duties to the considerable advantage of the community.

In the areas to which I have referred, and particularly in parts of Leinster and parts of the west, we are rapidly reaching the stage when it will be too late for us to do anything of a practical nature. The manner in which the people have left the land and the serious flight from rural Ireland are such that we are now finding ourselves in the position that it will be difficult to get people back again on the land.

I would ask the Minister, before it is too late, to deal with this problem as one of great urgency. It needs action and it needs to be courageously tackled. The Fine Gael policy, to which I referred last night, is the most practical way of dealing with that problem. It will bring better and quicker results and will eventually be the means of setting people back on the land again. Too many of our people have been driven off the land; too many of our people have not been encouraged to remain on the land. This country is now becoming a country of large towns and cities, with the rural population gone completely.

We cannot do without a rural population. Agriculture is the mainstay of this country and the small farmers are essential. It causes a certain amount of grave concern and grief to us to see such a very serious neglect of those on the land, particularly those who are living on small holdings. Lip service is of very little use to them. A pious expression of sympathy from the Minister is no use nor is a promise of something to be done in the near future. They want positive action now. They want the guidance of a proper policy. They want a future. They want a guarantee for themselves, their sons and their sons' children that they will be kept on the land, encouraged to remain on the land and that they will be helped, financially and otherwise, to get a good living on the land.

The people in the cities and provincial towns depend for their existence on the land. They depend on the hard work, skill and industry of the people producing from the land the essentials of life for man and beast. If we are to deprive the people in our towns and cities of the benefit of the hard work of the people on the land, we shall turn this country into one which will cause generations to come to regret that there was ever a Fianna Fáil Government in this country.

The Government are not using wisdom, foresight and determination in this matter. They are not dealing with the serious problems as they should. For that reason, promises and speeches by the Minister for Lands, by the Taoiseach or by the Minister for Agriculture will not avail. They will not solve the problem. For too long, our people have listened to those promises, expecting something to be done.

The time has now arrived when it will be very easy for us to solve congestion in many areas because the people will not be there. That is why I think, in so far as actions by the Government are concerned, that no Department can do more to end the race suicide which we have than the Department of Lands. A sound, sane land policy is what is wanted for this country. Therefore, I would ask that Land Commission policy be reviewed entirely.

The Land Commission was set up originally as a temporary institution. The time has now come for clear thinking, for positive thought, for action and determination. The time for a review of Land Commission activities has arrived and I hope and trust the problem will be approached in 1963 in a common sense and sane manner. We must realise we must plan for the future. We must have hope, confidence and trust in the future. Let us learn from the many mistakes that have been made in the past.

I am hopeful that from a good, sound land policy we can set up more families on the land and, please God, that we shall be able to get our younger people interested in staying on the land. There will be a return, then, to the parish as a unit, which is the real life and backbone of our country. The parish seems to be disappearing. Therefore, I hope a genuine effort will be made not alone to set the people back on the land but to put them in a position in which they will be able to live, and live well, and rear their families in Christian decency.

Mr. Blowick

My remarks will be fairly brief but I shall keep to the point as best I can. I must confess I felt like blushing a little last night when I heard the hymn of praise the Minister sang about the 1950 Act. I could not help reflecting that when the Minister was in Opposition, he lashed himself into a frenzy over all the terrible things he alleged would happen if the 1950 Bill were passed. The present Minister, then Deputy Moran, and Deputy Aiken, the late Seán Moylan — God rest his soul — and Deputy Vivion de Valera came in here in relays with amendments. I think, in relation to Section 6 of that Bill alone, they tabled something like 93 amendments, not one of which was accepted by the House. The purchase of land under Section 27 would be the greatest misfortune, they alleged. They also said that I, the then Minister, was taking power unto myself which the Commissioners always had and that all kinds of evil things would flow from it. However, there is not much point in harking back to what can only be described as the idiocy——

Mr. Dillon

It is no harm to remind them.

Mr. Blowick

I can describe it only as the biggest display of peevishness that one could imagine. Whether it is due to the Minister or the officials of the Land Commission, I am glad to say that the Act is being worked fairly well and, even at this late hour, is coming into its own.

There are a few good points about the 1950 Act. One was that the horrible ghastly system which operated prior to the enactment of that piece of legislation was altered. Under the former system, the Land Commission, according to law, must take a person's land at the price they offered—not the market value but the price the Land Commission saw fit to offer. That was a ghastly proceeding. I do not know how Fianna Fáil could have tolerated such a shocking injustice to the people all down the years from 1932 to 1948.

I heard of a woman in County Meath whose farm was acquired by the Land Commission. They fixed a price and she appealed to the Appeals Tribunal. The price was still held. There were some debts on the land. It consisted of 82 or 83 statute acres of good land. It was acquired from her. At the heel of the hunt, not alone had she to give the land to the Land Commission but she had to give £5 odd to clear the debt and she and her family were deprived of the land for all time. Another evil was the fact that no measure of compensation was given to herds, ploughmen and so on displaced from their employment when the Land Commission took over a farm.

The Minister made his famous statement in University College in September last and referred to all the big things he is going to do. I want to ask him one question. Fianna Fáil created a vast amount of congestion during their period in office. I have in mind the 17-acre and 18-acre holdings in Kildare, Meath, and Westmeath and within a few miles of the city of Dublin. These are, according to the Minister, uneconomic holdings. I cannot help thinking of a few ghastly experiments carried out in the earlier day of Fianna Fáil, one in Deputy McQuillan's constituency, where a farm of tolerably good land was divided into 11-acre holdings, on each of which a house was built, all because some crackpot told our mathematical Taoiseach of the time that his father had reared a family of nine on 11 acres and that 11 acres were good enough for any farmer. The then Taoiseach overrode his Minister for Lands who, I think, was Deputy Boland at that time. He called in the Land Commissioners and inquired as to the farms they had on hands. As a result, this farm in Roscommon of about 230 acres was divided into nine-acre holdings. That was Government policy. The Land Commission had no option but to do it. The result is that of all the nine-acre holdings established on that farm there are not four inhabited today. The crows are flying in the windows of the houses.

Similar experiments were carried out in Spangle Hill, Tipperary. A vast amount of congestion was created. If the Minister intends to bring all existing uneconomic holdings up to 40 and 45 acres, what will happen in respect of congestion in the west of Ireland when he starts to deal with all the congestion Fianna Fáil have created in the midland counties since 1932? Every 20-acre holding they created there is entitled to 25 acres more, according to the Minister and according to the Taoiseach. I want to know what will happen in the case of the congestion in the west if that takes place.

Incidentally, it may be no harm to remind the House of some of the points the Taoiseach made at the Muintir na Tíre Rural Week in Thurles. He said that future Land Commission policy would be to provide 40 to 45 acre holdings. The first inter-Party Government did that in 1950 under the Land Act, 1950. He said the State will contribute 50 per cent of the cost of land taken over. That is part and parcel of the 1933 Act. The State is contributing 50 per cent of the loss on resale of land since 1933, the time the Economic War started. He said the Land Commission would be empowered to occupy vacant and unworked land. What have they been doing since the late Paddy Hogan was Minister for Agriculture in 1933? Is that not what they have been doing? The Taoiseach, being a fairly shrewd politician, takes the old doll, dresses it in a new suit of clothes, hands it to the public and says: "Here is the very thing you want; here is what the good Fianna Fáil Government are going to do for you". That is not too far removed from fraud, in my opinion.

The Minister for Lands finds that the Taoiseach has stolen his thunder and comes out a few days later and waves a big stick over the farmers—these shocking people who left the land and went to England and America are pretty bad boys; they are not good patriots like the Minister or like myself; they did not stay at home.

Let us examine the situation. What has happened under Fianna Fáil since 1932? By the Economic War, by the condition of affairs they allowed to become established during the war years in 1938 to 1945 and subsequently they have deliberately forced people off the land, to such an extent that the decline in the rural population is a matter of concern to anybody with any sense of national pride. They forced people off the land simply because they failed to provide a living for them. The Government having hunted and chased people over to England, America and Australia, the present Minister says these people are shocking blackguards to desert their holdings and that he is going to grab the holdings if they do not come back to live on them.

Suppose the Minister does bring in such an infamous Bill, if these people do come back to live on these holdings, will he and the Minister for Agriculture guarantee to them even a moderate living on these holdings? That gives some idea of the proposed legislation, in a nutshell, as far as I can see. I can only read what the Minister has said and these are some of the things he has said, speaking at University College. He has said that he was told by Netherlands agriculturists that they were shocked at the type of land user in this country. I wonder did the Minister ask them what the Netherlands Government have done for their farmers in providing markets and making other provisions to save the agricultural industry? I do not think he did. I am sure he did not tell them that the policy of his Government for almost a score of years was to chase the small farmers off the land, to go anywhere they liked. Of course, he did not tell them that.

The Minister glossed over the purchase of land by foreigners. Admittedly, there may be some exaggeration in some quarters about that, but, from the figures the Minister gave yesterday in his introductory statement, it would appear that this matter is becoming a serious problem. When I was Minister for Lands, foreigners were purchasing land here at the rate of about 1,100 or 1,200 acres a year and we were beginning to say that this was a matter that should be watched but now we find that the figure has gone up to 11,000 acres, most of it good land. I agree that a good deal of barren seashore and non-agricultural land has been bought by foreigners but there is no doubt that land in which the Land Commission should have interested themselves has been bought by foreigners.

It certainly seems ironical that our own people are being forced off the land while foreigners are being welcomed by the Minister for Agriculture and told the more that come the better and what great boys they are to show the lazy, slothful, useless Irish farmer how to work his land. In future, foolish, idiotic statements should not be made, particularly by Ministers. I am quite prepared to make allowance for occasions when a person's tongue may get the better of him but Ministers should be very careful, particularly when addressing foreigners, inviting them to this country to purchase land.

It should not be forgotten that our own people have been chased off the land. The Minister for Agriculture should not be inviting foreigners in and praising their methods. What do we know about them? In any case, we do not want them. We want our own people. Right since 1932 Fianna Fáil have regarded the agricultural community as something to be banished from the country. Agriculture has been sacrificed on the altar of industrialism. That has actually helped to wreck industrial policy because our first market should be our home market. We banished the agricultural community and now we are going to the four corners of the earth trying to find a market for our industrial goods. Had we kept our own people at home we would now have a sizeable market for many useful industries which are providing good employment.

The Minister mentioned a figure of 70,000 acres inspected last year and 31,000 acquired. That is fairly good. It is almost the same as the figure, practically to the acre, in my time. I remember one year it would be 75,000 inspected and 32,000 acquired. It never went below 29,000 acquired— 30,000, 31,000, 32,000 and so on. The figure of 1,800 allottees is good; so is the figure of 32,000 acres allotted. When is it hoped that vesting of tenanted land will be completed? The Minister mentioned a figure of something like 6,000. Does that mean we are down to 6,000 that cannot be vested until some improvement or enlargement has taken place? Is that the size of our uneconomic problem at the moment?

The model house on display in the hall is a vast improvement on the old type of house built by the Land Commission. For quite a number of years now the houses built with the aid of Local Government and county council grants have been nice up-to-date houses, but the house built by the Land Commission was a horrible gazebo, more like a glorified barn than a dwellinghouse. It stamped the occupier because of its very appearance. The interior of the new model is ideal. I hope money will not be spared on the outside of the house. Deputy Flanagan urged last night that these houses should not be stuck away behind hills. I thoroughly agree with him. These houses should be erected along the roadside as far as possible. Whoever is responsible for planning the new house deserves to be highly commended.

I am very glad of the improvement where game is concerned. The Minister referred to predators last night. There is one kind of predator who destroys the good work done by the game councils all over the country. I refer to the man who sneaks out with a gun. He is described locally as a "pot man". I admit he has a licence, but he goes out to slaughter birds. I have heard men boasting that they got 14 pheasants and 16 or 17 grouse. I cannot understand that senseless killing of birds. In my opinion a live pheasant or grouse is a much nicer sight than a dead one. That is not to say that I object to the man with a game licence who shoots whatever he needs for his own household. It is of senseless slaughter I do not approve. I shall support any steps the Minister takes to curtail the activities of the fellow who fills the boot of his car with dead birds, some of which he gives away and some of which go to loss. The game councils buy young birds and distribute them. They go to great trouble and expense to improve stocks but their efforts are negatived by these predators.

A problem facing the Land Commission—it is one that should be highlighted here as much as possible—is the denudation of townland after townland of its population. I can quote several villages; it is not so long ago since I went to the national school and I knew villages in my immediate locality from which the children out of nine or 14 houses attended the same national school. In one village today there is only one young family. All the other houses are derelict. It is typical of what is happening all over. The Minister must be aware of the trend. It is obvious on the north-east side of Castlebar. The Minister knows that area very well. Slowly but surely we are going back to the system of land occupation of the early eighteenth century, the days of Grattan's Parliament, when one family farmed a townland. The Land Commission must deal with this problem. I want to know what steps are being taken to combat the decline in population in the rural areas.

Responsibility rests, too, on the shoulders of the Minister for Agriculture. It is all very fine talking about people from the Netherlands coming over here and being shocked at the user of land here. Who is there to use and work the land? Go to any chapel gate on Sunday, as we politicians do, and see what comes out from the chapel to meet us. The very old and a crowd of school children. The able-bodied have gone to England. You will not get five men between the ages of 20 and 40 coming out of any chapel.

Mr. Meaney

Where do the school children come from then?

Mr. Blowick

I am sick and tired of Fianna Fáil "yobs" of Deputies making a laughing stock of this problem. That has been the fashion ever since the time Deputy Corry described the small farmers of this country as "hen roosters".

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy should not refer to other Deputies in that manner.

Mr. Blowick

If the Deputies opposite think this is an opera house, would they take themselves outside the door until I have finished anyway?

Mr. Dillon

Hear, hear.

Order.

Mr. Blowick

I was speaking of the depopulation of our villages. That is something that is staring the Land Commission straight in the face. If there were a change of Government tomorrow it would be staring the new Minister for Lands, whoever he might be, straight in the face. It is something of which we must take notice, but the policy seems to be to sit back until there will be only one inhabited house in every village. Either we let that happen or we take some action to remedy the trend. The truth is there is not a living on the average holding. Even the 40-acre holding is now becoming something on which the youngsters will not stay.

I am sure the Minister time and time again has met people who have reared a family of sons and whose complaint is that they cannot induce one of them to stay at home and keep the family name and the family farm going. In talking about 45-acre holdings at the present time, the Minister is about five years behind the times. The 40- to 45-acre farm of good land will not hold a youngster today. What income is there from it? There is absolutely no assistance given towards living on it.

There are a few problems concerning my own constituency which I wish to mention. There are pockets of congestion there about which I am sure the Minister knows. I appreciate that there are difficulties involved in the few isolated pockets of congestion that are left there. However, an estate that was purchased by the Congested Districts Board away back in 1912 or 1913 has been left as it was—it was a small estate with only nine or ten tenants within a few miles of Castlebar—and that is something that should not happen. It is a difficult problem for the inspectors and for the legal men to tackle but every effort should be made to solve . Otherwise not one of those nine or ten families will stay there.

On the other side of Castlebar, the part of the constituency of North Mayo which under the Electoral Act came into South Mayo, there are still pretty bad pockets of congestion. Only recently I took up with the Land Commission the question of a few townlands where the valuation ranged from £1 12s. Od. per holding to £4 16s. Od., the highest. The land there is not of the best quality and there are no big farms near hand that can be acquired. The only way to solve the problem is to migrate two out of three of them. It would be a costly procedure but we should not be losing families by haggling over the cost of resettling them.

There are many other places too numerous to mention about which the Land Commission have been pestered all down the years and an effort should be made to deal with them. I think I am correct in saying that the biggest problems in relation to uneconomic holdings and congestion are in the two constituencies of Galway and the two constituencies of Mayo. This problem is a long time dragging on and, as Deputy Flanagan said a few minutes ago, people are tired of being told: "When such an estate is settled, yours will be next" or "You are very close to it now."

It is no harm to remind the House, as I have done on previous occasions, that the Land Commission was never intended to relieve congestion. It was set up as a body to purchase for the tenant farmers from the landlord and to fix a fair rent for them. The Congested Districts Board was established to deal largely with the western counties and to relieve congestion. The purchase of land for the relief of congestion and other bits of machinery that constitute the Land Commission today have been tagged on down through the years.

I am glad to see that vesting is drawing to a close. A very good job was done but it is not work that shows up as well as that of the Forestry Division. The Forestry Division can take over a side of the country and change it from heather or barren ground into a green forest. The fixing up of 400,000 holdings and farms all over the country, the gigantic task undertaken by the Land Commission, cannot be seen readily and it is difficult for the man in the street to appreciate it.

People from other countries who are interested in similar problems to ours were astounded at the work the Land Commission and the Congested Districts Board had done in this country. Some of these countries— Switzerland is one—must tackle now the work which was done earlier this century by the Congested Districts Board. I was amazed to find that in Switzerland it is quite a common thing for a man to have a holding scattered over a five-mile area in as many bits as 71, as in one instance which I saw on a map. The same applies to Belgium, Portugal, Spain and many other European countries.

That is something I did not realise. I thought all these people were very happy but they are not. The South of Italy is in a dreadful state. We may have our own grumbles here with the Land Commission and the Minister for Lands but the situation of these other European countries is much more serious than ours. The Land Commission have conquered for us the problems which now face these countries and the Land Commission have something to be proud of. If they have a fault it is that they have hidden their light under a bushel. If somebody in the Land Commission had any spare time I should like to see presented in a pamphlet an account of what has been done. It would make very good reading for those of us who take an interest in the problem.

However, the big problems remaining are, number one, the relief of congestion and uneconomic holdings; number two, the problem of our deserted villages; number three, the purchase of land by foreigners. These are the big problems. If the Minister brings in legislation to bring every holding up to 40 or 45 acres I want to know what will become of the uneconomic holders in the west. It must be remembered that this suggestion has been made by the Government not by the Land Commission. It is Government policy that determines the size of a holding. The Land Commission are not to blame if the size of the holding is 20 acres, 50 acres or 100 acres. They must carry out whatever policy is decided upon by the Government. In any event, the determination of the proper size of a holding is something that should be in the hands of the Government but I want to know in regard to this pool of land that will be acquired in the midlands what is to become of the uneconomic holders in the west if that land in the midlands is to be used to enlarge the uneconomic holdings which have been created in the past 30 years.

Mr. Tully

I should like the Minister to appreciate the fact that all of us in this House, when we speak on the policy of the Land Commission, are anxious to see the right thing done according to our lights and that any criticism directed to him or to the Land Commission has always the object of improving the work of the Land Commission. I want him to know that while I have been very critical during the period I have been in this House, my criticism has been in no way personal either to him or the officials of the Land Commission. I simply say and do what I think I am supposed to say and do in the interests of my constituents.

The opening speech of the Minister makes very interesting reading. There are a number of matters about which I was rather surprised. To take one example, the Minister refers to the way in which employees on a farm are treated. He says it is only right, if they are suitable, they should be considered for holdings. I agree entirely with him. If somebody loses employment on a farm because the Land Commission take it over and divide it, it is only right he should be looked after. I have in mind many instances where people working on farms lost their jobs and were neither compensated in money nor given portion of a farm.

I wonder is there some other rule to which the Minister has not referred in his speech? One very sizeable farm was taken over a few years ago. Those employed on it included a young man with a family of six or seven children. All the employees, including some with short service on the farm, got compensation in cash but this man got nothing. I personally raised the matter with the Land Commission repeatedly but he still got nothing. Eventually, he had to emigrate as there was no other work in the area. His young family are now growing up there and he is working in England and comes home once a year to see them. Possibly this occurred before the present Minister took office, but the rule is there and if it is being administered fairly things like that should not occur.

I know of other instances where men employed for a long time on farms were dismissed by the employers before the Land Commission were asked to acquire the land but dismissed because the owners wanted the Land Commission to take over. In those cases the employees concerned were ignored. It was stated that they did not lose their jobs as a result of the Land Commission acquiring the farm and while that may be literally true they would not have lost their jobs if the owner had not decided that he was unable to carry on and that handing over to the Land Commission meant they were out of jobs. If he sold the farm to somebody else, possibly these men would continue in employment.

There are other cases. There is one man in particular who had worked on a farm for donkey's years. It was a sizeable farm and he had worked as a herd. He has no hope of getting employment anywhere in the area and his prospect of living now is to remain on the labour exchange for six months getting unemployment money and after that on the dole until old age catches up with him and he gets the old age pension. He got neither a farm nor compensation. I asked the Minister some time ago if a decision had been taken not to give him a farm and the Minister said that was entirely untrue, that no such decision had been taken but the man had been informed by a member of the Land Commission previous to my question that he was not going to get a farm.

There is in that estate one farm not divided and that brings me to the next point. Surely when the Land Commission decide to divide a farm they should divide the whole of it? Why keep one portion, big or small, dangling before the people of the area so that everybody thinks he may get it? Perhaps the Land Commission have a reason for it but if so, the public should be told of it. It seems odd that the farm is kept sometimes for years and usually for 12 months and eventually somebody who could originally have been given the farm is made the owner of it. This causes a lot of unrest in the area. It is very undesirable and the Land Commission should discontinue the practice.

The Minister has said that the Land Commission do not overhold a holding without very good reason and that they most certainly do not, as he has told me repeatedly in answer to questions, hold them for the purpose of making money. I am prepared to accept that, although it is not the view held by the people generally. I think, however, there can be no explanation for the holding of a farm by the Land Commission and the setting of it on the 11-months system year after year. I know a very large farm which has been held by the Commission since 1957. I cannot understand what the reason is. There was a certain amount of agitation in the area as there is when any farm is being divided and a number of people feel they are entitled to it. But they are civilised people who will not do anything drastic or unlawful and I think they would be very foolish if they did not press their claims as strongly as possible. That should not be taken by the Land Commission as a reason for holding that farm and setting it on the 11-months system exactly as the previous owner did when the farm was taken from him. The Land Commission will take over—and I heartily agree with them —if a farm is being set year after year by the owner, because it is bad husbandry but, apparently, the Land Commission then think there is nothing wrong when they do exactly the same thing.

The Minister is a sensible man and I am sure he will agree, even though he has given replies here to my questions suggesting he does not agree, that it is not desirable that practice should continue. Where farms have been held for a long time, they should be divided as quickly as possible. I also suggest that if, as he stated in his opening speech, it is necessary to hold a certain amount of land on hands, surely the reasonable thing to do is to hold the last farms taken over and divide the farms that have been in the Land Commission's possession for a long time?

The question of who is to get land is a burning one in my constituency. The people who live there and I myself feel that if there are in the area people who could work the land, they should get first preference. The Land Commission hold that congests, particularly from the west and south-west, should be first considered and we have a tug-of-war going on over the years. I think I should repeat what I have said to the Minister on many occasions. While we object strongly to bringing migrants into an area where there are many people who could use land, yet, when the Commission bring those migrants in, we have always made them welcome. That can be borne out by the migrants themselves, many of whom are very close friends of mine, although whether they are political supporters of mine is another matter.

I want to impress on the Minister the situation which occurs when a number of migrants are brought into an area where a large farm is divided and where first you have former employees of that farm seeking employment and in addition a number of landless men and smallholders, many of whom have much less than the farms given out in the 1930s— which were referred to by Deputy Blowick and the Minister as now considered uneconomic. These people and their children are seeking employment in the area.

Has the Minister ever considered the effect on the economy of such an area when 20 or 30 families come in there, many of them with large growing families of their own, all seeking employment, while the only employment available is that held by the natives and their children? It soon becomes a tug-of-war. Somebody must go and in many cases, as a result of the influx of a large number of migrants, particularly in Meath, it is the local people who have to pack up and emigrate to England or move into the city in search of employment. They lose any chance of employment at home because of the appearance on the scene of a number of people who, in some cases, are prepared to work at a rate much lower than the ordinary rate in the area. Apart entirely from the rights and wrongs of land division, the Minister and the Land Commission should take that point into consideration. It has had a terribly bad effect, particularly in Meath.

There is also the position of the people who come in and who may have had a few acres in the west, even though they did not obtain their livelihood from the land. Many of them supplemented their incomes by fishing and other work. They are put into land capable of providing a very good living for somebody who knows how to work it, but, no matter how hard these people try, they find they cannot make a living out of it. Before long, as the Minister is probably aware, they either sell the farm they have been given and get a free gift of £6,000 or £7,000, because I am sure the farms they left in the west would not be worth anything like that, or they close their doors, set the farm and go across to England or elsewhere.

In Meath at present we have a large number of these farms let by people who have emigrated. I grant you they may come home at Christmas or for a few weeks in the summer, but I do not think that was the idea the Land Commission had when they originally brought those people into the areas. I do not want anybody to get the idea that this is being done wholesale, because that would not be true, but it is being done on a fairly large scale. There are certain areas in Meath where a big number of farms were divided and a big number of migrants brought in. Those houses are now closed. If the Minister wishes, I can supply him with the names and addresses of the people to whom I am referring. It is a serious problem and has added fuel to the fire in the hearts of the natives who were not considered when the land was being divided and who now find that those who got the land are not prepared to try to work it.

I am not blaming the Minister, because most of what I am referring to occurred before he took office. As a matter of fact, some of it occurred when the last speaker, Deputy Blowick, was in office. Apparently, it makes very little difference who is Minister— the policy of the Land Commission has not changed. I suggest in the gentlest way possible to the Minister that he should have a look at the whole situation. He says he is going to increase the size of holdings to 40 acres in order to make a viable farm. If he is going to consider people who got 25 acres in the thirties, will he consider also people whose families have had farms for generations but whose farms are smaller than 25 acres, or will they still be told that because they do not live in a congested area, they cannot be considered for an increase in their farm?

I do not like using the expression "rural slum". Unfortunately, that expression can be applied even in Meath. I know very many people have the impression that until recently Meath was made up of very large ranches and that there were no small farmers there. I can assure Deputies not aware of the situation that there are as poor farmers and small farmers in Meath as anywhere else in Ireland and that many of them would be very glad to get an increase in their holdings if the Land Commission would consider them for such an increase.

The question of transfer holdings has been referred to. I agree entirely with the policy of the Land Commission that if somebody is prepared to give up an uneconomic farm on condition he is transferred to a larger holding, that should be done. I am aware it has been done on many occasions and the holding left has been given to one or more than one smallholder in the area. Occasionally, however, rather peculiar things occur when transfers take place.

I should like to refer to a farmer who was transferred quite recently. That farmer had two small holdings in the area in which he lived. He got a full-sized holding and a house in another area. For some extraordinary reason, however, the Land Commission took only one of the holdings from him and he is allowed to set the remaining holding on the 11-months system. That looks to me very much like preferential treatment for some reason or another. If the man was prepared to give up his holding and transfer to a full-sized farm, I agree the Land Commission were correct in transferring him; but if they are going to allow him to hold on to one of the two holdings and have the best of both worlds, they are not doing a good job. It looks a bit odd to people who also applied for a transfer and did not get it that their neighbour can get the transfer and still hold on to half the original amount of his land.

Land division in Meath could be debated for hours, but I do not propose delaying the House to deal with all aspects of it. However, one reply the Minister gave me last year is so peculiar that I should like to recall it to his memory. I believe he may possibly have said in reply to a supplementary something he did not mean. I was making a case for a man who had no land but who had started a dairy and had 12 cows. He had to buy all the root crops he needed; he had to take land from neighbouring farmers for the purpose of getting grazing for his cattle; and he had to take tillage land from another neighbour.

The Minister's explanation as to why that man had not been considered when the farm on which his house was situated was being divided was that a man engaged in dairying was not a farmer. The Minister may recall the reply he gave. I should like to ask him now whether he thinks this man is a farmer or not. It was the Minister's view that dairying is not farming, and I would pose him this question as a rejoinder: has a man not to grow root crops; does he not require land for the purpose of feeding his cattle, if he is in the dairying business? The man I am interested in has proved himself to be a good, industrious worker and is he not, therefore, entitled to a portion of any land being divided in the area? I understand another farm is coming up for division in the vicinity in the near future and would it be too much to ask the Minister to see that this argument is not used against this dairy farmer again?

The new house which has been shown to us in Leinster House this week, and which was on view at Ballsbridge earlier in the month, is something of which the Land Commission engineers can rightly be proud. I would agree it was about time the Land Commission decided to change the stereotyped house they have been erecting for donkey's ages. Apart from its appearance, it was not even a well-planned house. I am delighted the change has been made but I would add to it the suggestion that we do not stick to this type of house until everybody here is dead and gone: if improvements can be made to it I suggest they would be done as soon as possible.

When the Land Commission are siting houses I do not agree they should be lined up in rows but that they should be built, individually if necessary, as the convenience of the landholder demands. Might I also suggest in this regard that the Land Commission, before starting building operations, would ensure it will be possible to get electric power connected with the house at normal rates if at all possible? There is nothing so annoying to a farmer who wants to use all modern conveniences in his home and farm yard as to find that the best he can be offered is a £10 subsidy for bottled gas.

Mr. McQuillan

Supplied by the Minister for Transport and Power.

Mr. Tully

I suggest the Land Commission could take the lead given by some local authorities in contacting the local ESB office and finding out if the site of a house is suitable for connection for electric current purposes. Otherwise farmers concerned will either have to do without electric power or will have to pay an extra charge which they cannot afford.

The question of water supplies has been mentioned. It has been the practice of the Land Commission in many cases to sink pumps for one tenant or for a group. Now it is nearly a general practice to sink pumps for individual tenants, but, unfortunately, the Land Commission have been using the dug well system. One thing about the dug well is that it provides water for household purposes but there is the difficulty that as soon as the crew who are sinking the well strike water they stop. The result is that the well will not survive the first dry summer.

The Commission have now switched over to artesian bores. I would ask the Minister to be very careful about this system of water provision because, as people in the country who have been using water from such wells know, very often it is found the water cannot be used, not because it is unsafe for human consumption but because it is unpalatable—it has a terrible taste. It often strikes me that there must be a lot more minerals in the country than people realise because practically every well sunk by artesian bore seems to run through a bed of minerals and the water tastes very badly. We have complaints from all over the place, particularly from people engaged in the handling of milk, that the water cannot be used.

I want to turn now to the question of grants for houses. The Land Commission are doing pretty well with regard to giving assistance in the building of houses but there is one point of which I do not know whether or not the Land Commission are aware. It has been brought to my attention, and I feel sure to the notice of many other Deputies. Some people who go into a Land Commission house after a few years, for one reason or another, like to renovate, repair or enlarge the house. When they apply to the Department of Local Government for a grant for such work they are surprised to find that as the Land Commisison have got a grant for the erection of the house the tenants are not eligible for a grant for 15 years. Since it only means moving money from one pocket to the other, would it not be well if the Land Commission did not seek grants, therefore allowing the tenants to be eligible for grants when and if they want to improve the amenities or enlarge their houses?

The amount of land held by non-nationals has been mentioned but the Minister seemed to suggest it is not going on on any large scale. Perhaps the Minister is giving us the facts as he sees them but as a member of the legal profession I feel sure he is well aware that it is quite common for land to be bought in trust by a solicitor for a client. The Minister should also be well aware that particularly in the midlands very large parcels of land have, in fact, been bought in trust for non-nationals. As a matter of fact, I understand there is a very cute kind of arrangement being made whereby some people, through a solicitor, are buying land and then setting it back again to the original owner at a nominal figure per year for a number of years, making the stipulation that they may take possession of the land at any time on payment of a further sum for what they call "removal".

I do not know what the reason for this is, but it is true the device is being used on a fairly large scale. If the Minister goes fully into it, I feel sure he will meet difficulties in his endeavours to get the information he requires but I know he will be as horrified as some of us were when he finds the facts. I am afraid we have reached the situation where a lot of the best land in the country is held by non-nationals.

In this respect, I want to make one thing clear. I do not care what criticism may come from certain people, but I suggest that if somebody intends buying a farm with the prospect of giving a lot of employment on that farm, there should be very little objection to the sale—any more than there is objection to somebody who starts a factory and employs Irish people in it. What I object to is this system under which those people are coming in and buying land, and apparently, after a short time, deciding the best use they can make of the land is to set it on the 11-months system. We find that ranches are being started again, not by Irish people who live in London, but by people who have paid only a fleeting visit to Ireland, and who are, apparently, out to make as much money as they can, without giving any employment, good, bad or indifferent.

I know the Minister has taken action in one or two cases, and has opened negotiations for the acquisition of those lands. I know also that when some of those people are challenged to pay the stamp duty which is due, they say they have not got the money, and they say they are prepared to give the Land Commission a certain portion of the farm to pay off the stamp duty, hoping that in the course of the transaction they will be able to make a good deal and get more for the portion of the land—usually back-end or marginal land—than it is worth. They hold on to the best portion of the land. The Land Commission should endeavour to ensure that, if there is any tendency to revert to the bad old system which was in operation some years ago, when the absentee landlord leased all the land or ran it into grass, there is no hesitation in using their powers to acquire that land.

The Minister referred to game rights. While I agree the Land Commission are doing quite well in this matter, I think we are losing sight of one important point. It is just too bad if an Irish farmer finds that he does not own the game rights on his own land, and that people can trespass —that is the only word I can think of —on his land, and prove that they hold the game rights, or the permission of the person who holds the game rights, to shoot or fish on his land, while he pays the rent and rates and other outgoings which he must pay.

When land is being divided, the game and fishing rights should be handed over to the Irish farmer. That is his right and it should not be taken from him on any pretext. Let the Land Commission, the game councils, or the State, make any provision they want, to ensure that the game is properly protected, but for goodness sake, do not let us continue the system we had some years ago, that when a farm was being divided, the absentee landlord was allowed to retain the game rights. That is being changed now and the Land Commission retain them and let or sell them to someone who has no more right there than the absentee landlord had before. Let the Irish farmer have undisputed right to his own land and everything on it. There will be very little objection from the Irish public if that is done.

Reference was made to the wages of Land Commission workers. It is true that their wages have been increased and, in addition, an incentive bonus has been introduced. It is only fair to say that the trade unions and the Land Commission seemed to be perfectly satisfied with the operation of the incentive bonus but at first the incentive bonus was not operated as it should be. Some of the big increase referred to is due to the fact that it was found that the men were not getting what they were entitled to. I am glad to say the matter was rectified when it was brought to the notice of the officials, and the men are now perfectly satisfied that they are getting a fair return for the work they are doing. They could do with more money but then, who could not?

On the question of hours, we find a peculiar thing happening. Men employed on the erection of houses work a 45-hour, five-day week, and men employed on ditch and road-making work a 48-hour five-and-half-day week. I do not know how that system was worked out. I do not know how it is maintained that a man is not as much entitled to a reduction in the number of hours he works when working on ditches or roads, as he is when working on the building of houses. I wish the Land Commission would take another look at that position and forget the question of holding the line. The line is badly dented and has been broken in many cases. It seems to be a question of trying to prove that when a man is employed on ditches and roads, he is not as good a man as he is when building or repairing houses. That has been played out.

A claim for an increase in wages for people employed in a supervisory capacity by the Land Commission has been under consideration for over 12 months. It is disgraceful that the Land Commission should hold up a decision on this matter for such a long time. Everything possible has been done to get it cleared up. I am told by some people that the delay is due to the fact that the Minister cannot make up his mind. I am told by others whom I consider more honest that the whole trouble is that the Department of Finance have not made up their minds. If this claim affected the people in the Department of Finance, they would make up their minds very quickly.

I want to refer now to the question of some kind of sick pay and pension scheme for the supervisory grades. If it cannot be done for the ordinary workers because they are casuals, surely there is nothing to stop the Land Commission from dealing fairly with people whom they have employed for a long number of years. I know there is an occasional break in their employment but in local authority employment in which a sick pay and bonus scheme is in operation, there are occasional breaks also. I would ask the Minister to impress on the Land Commission that they should give careful consideration to this matter, because the man who has given long and faithful service in any walk of life is entitled to a little more than simply a week's wages.

I suggest to the Minister that he should not give excerpts from his proposed Land Bill until it has passed through this House. It is really too bad to read in the morning papers that the Minister for Lands has said that this, that, or the other thing will be done as soon as the Land Bill has been passed. In ordinary courtesy, these matters should be left until the Dáil has had an opportunity to debate them, and an opportunity either to pass or reject them. It is not right that the Minister should make statements that he intends to do certain things when there is no certainty that they will be done. The Minister would be well advised to leave the whole question over at least until the text of the Bill is before the House. There seems to be a great reluctance on the part of the Minister and his Department to produce the Bill. I understand that there are a number of matters in it which are simply a re-hash of the existing law but I also understand from some of his statements that there are a number of breaks with the traditional way of dealing with these matters.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

It would not be in order to have a debate on the Bill at this stage.

Mr. Tully

I do not propose to debate the Bill at all. I am just referring to the fact that the Bill should be introduced here and not be revealed piecemeal by any Minister speaking to groups of his supporters throughout the country. Such a course tends to the expression of comments which might prove to be ill-informed when the Bill is introduced.

I would appreciate very much if the Land Commission would, when they get a letter from a public representative, send a reply to that letter. I do not agree that a Department of State should send out this type of stencilled acknowledgment on which the name of a person to whom you have referred is typed in, and is not always typed on the lines, so that sometimes it is difficult to read the name. The least the Land Commission could do—and I am not blaming the officials; I am sure they are acting under orders — is to reply acknowledging the points made in the letter sent to them. I have raised this matter with the Land Commission but since I have not got a reply, I feel this is the only way of dealing with it. I hope I will not have to raise it again. It is the height of discourtesy to send out such a form.

From time to time, public representatives, including myself, have brought to the notice of the Land Commission, as a result of local representation, a farm or farms which should be inspected with a view to acquisition. They have also been supplied with a list of local applicants. Two things should be done. The Department should examine the proposal and should reply to the person who makes the representations, stating whether or not they intend to acquire the farm. They do that in a general way but I should like to see it being done in such a way that you can understand why the farm is not being taken over, if that is the case. The applicants should be interviewed about the matter. I am aware that sometimes when a small number are involved, the inspectors will interview the people, but where a large number are involved, a neighbour is asked to express an opinion on their rights to get a portion of a farm. That is not the way it should be done. They should get the full story and make up their own minds and not allow somebody else to influence them. Apart from my complaint about the letter, I should say that I have found the Minister—apart from his replies to questions in the House — and the Land Commission officials, dealing with me either as a public representative or a trade union official, to be most courteous and most willing to be of assistance.

Deputy Corry and Deputy McQuillan rose.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Corry.

Mr. Corry

Every Deputy who has spoken has alluded to the Land Commission house. I am something of a critic about this and I should like to make one suggestion to the Minister before he builds any more. I suggest that he get Deputy Blowick, Deputy Burke and Deputy Norton to go through that three-foot hallway and see if they will fit. There is no use building a house if a man cannot fit into it. The Minister should take Deputy Blowick through the hallway to see if he will fit, and he should do the same with Deputy Norton and Deputy Burke, in case any of them might be Minister for Lands some day or have to live in a Land Commission house. The hallway is too narrow, unless the Minister is considering some hungry person from the County Mayo who will never fill out. That is the way I look at it. The hallway is too narrow and in addition, there is no light in it and one goes into complete darkness. Those are two remedies which I should like to suggest to the Minister.

There is an old saying in my county that when the devil is sick, the devil a saint would be, but when the devil is well, the devil a saint is he. That applies to the Opposition speakers I heard to-day. I listened to Deputy Flanagan and Deputy Blowick howling and screeching about foreigners who got land here. I remember the case of the Smith estate in Aghada which consisted of about 450 acres of tip-top land and the former Deputy O'Gorman, the late Deputy Keane, God rest his soul, and I went to Deputy Blowick to ask him to have that land divided among the people who previously had been evicted from it. The matter went on for a long time and finally I had to raise it on the Adjournment here on two occasions. Those 450 acres comprise portion of the 11,000 acres because Deputy Blowick allowed them to be bought by an Englishman and to me an Englishman is as much a foreigner as any German. The price of the holding at that time was £7,000 for the 450 acres. It was since sold for £37,000 and if the Land Commission were to take possession of it tomorrow, people would have to pay five times the rate they would have had to pay if Deputy Blowick had done his duty as Minister for Lands.

Mr. Dillon

Now you know why they are buying land.

Mr. Corry

Now we know land has become valuable since we knocked Deputy Dillon as Minister for Agriculture. I hear Deputies, who were Ministers in the Coalition Government, howl and screech about foreigners getting land. They do that now, when they have no responsibility. When they were Ministers, the situation was different. Of the total of 11,000 acres acquired by foreigners, no fewer than 450 acres were involved in one job in my constituency when Deputy Blowick was Minister for Lands.

Deputy Blowick was very sore in some of his remarks. He said that there is nobody left in Mayo now except the very old people and the children. I wonder at what age they get married in Mayo and whether it is the old age pension that is producing the children. In fact, I wonder whether anyone would have got married there if de Valera had not introduced the children's allowances.

From the statements made by members of the Opposition in regard to the Land Commission, it is obvious that it would require another £3 million over the next 12 months to carry out a small portion of the recommendations made by Deputy O.J. Flanagan and Deputy Blowick. I often wondered why the Fine Gael mantle was extended to Deputy Flanagan, and now I know. It was a question of finding cash and, after all, Deputy Flanagan came in here as a Monetary Reform man. This would require not a turnover tax but a duplicator which would turn out notes which would hurt nobody but the fellow who would get them. That is the reason why Deputy Flanagan, who was Parliamentary Secretary, looked on while Deputy Blowick was allowing land to go to the foreigners. That is the reason he was taken under Deputy Dillon's standard.

What the devil did Fine Gael, or Cumann na nGaedheal before them, ever do to keep the people on the land? Let us ask ourselves a straight question. Why are the people leaving the land, even under present conditions? Let us ask ourselves that. People are leaving the land because the income they can get from any industry in this country is far larger than the income they can get from the land. The situation is not peculiar to this country. It is the situation in every country in Europe today. The squeeze is going on in connection with it and it is a fairly considerable squeeze.

Very good. We will have another day for that and I hope we will enjoy it thoroughly. I want to go into the position as regards the Flower Estate in Cloyne where, again under Deputy Blowick's rule, when representations were made here to have this 680-acre estate divided, the Land Commission took possession of 11 acres. That gives an idea of the activities of the people who are now complaining. Two hundred acres of that estate were a deer park, the Lord between us and harm.

I have been appalled by some of the conditions I have found in portions of the constituency that were willed to me in the last general election. I would suggest that a special official of the Land Commission should be assigned to each district for the sole purpose of examining congestion with a view to having the lands reallotted and tenants transferred to holdings I will mention later. I suggest that that should be done in Rockchapel, Meelin, Newmarket, Knuttery, Burnfort, Barrack, Bottle Hill, in the northern portion of Glenville, and in Ballymacoda and Ballycotton in the eastern portions. In the whole of that area, there are a large number of smallholders, none of whom can get a livelihood on the land under present conditions. I am suggesting that they should be transferred and that a special official of the Land Commission should be detailed to investigate the matter.

I realise that I am now making that request of a Minister who is sympathetic, who knows his job and is doing it. I cannot have anything but the highest praise for the officials of the Land Commission in regard to the division of land.

We have heard a great deal from Deputy Flanagan and Deputy Blowick to the effect that a man should be paid the full market value of his holding and about the special section that was put into the Land Bill to deal with that. In the last days before Deputy Blowick removed himself out of the Land Commission, he was asked about his activities in that line, how many auctions were held, how many Land Commission officials attended auctions. His reply was that Land Commission officials attended one auction and that the price went too high and they did not buy. That is here, if the Deputy wants it. It happened just before Deputy Blowick left office. It would seem that that section of the Bill was not going to be used by Deputy Blowick for the purpose of acquiring land or paying the owners the market value. The Land Commission, according to that reply, did not buy because the price was too high. The smallholders in the district were allowed to remain there because, apparently, £6,000 or £7,000 was too high a price to pay for 400 or 500 acres of land, which is now value for £30,000 or £35,000.

The present Minister has a different outlook entirely. I had occasion to approach the Minister in connection with a holding of some 90-odd acres in Newmarket. There was a group of unfortunate people in the area who had been watching that bit of land for years. The owner had been nonresident for a full generation. The farmers in the neighbourhood had no hope of getting the land. The land was put up for sale. The Land Commission officials attended the auction. The Minister bought the holding and divided it. The Minister's officials in Cork created a miracle as well as a precedent. I have been a long time here and I have never before heard of an estate being divided where everyone was satisfied. I do not think anyone in this House has ever heard of an estate being divided where everybody was satisfied with the result. I have here proof of the general satisfaction in a letter I received, which says:

Dear Mr. Corry,

I am writing to let you know that the farm was divided during the past week. It was divided amongst the seven applicants as fairly as was possible and the proof of this is that all are delighted and satisfied at their good fortune. The rent fixed is very reasonable, approximately 32/6 per acre for the good land and reducing for the mixed land to approximately 25/-.

Mr. McQuillan

Read the rest of it.

Mr. Corry

I do not like to. It says:

On behalf of the seven families, and at their request, I thank you most sincerely for what you did. I cannot find words to express how we feel towards you. These seven families and their ancestors had to struggle hard for existence down through the years and, due to very limited means, money was always scarce. So you can now imagine their joy on being given an opportunity of making a more comfortable living. It is a magnificent gift, thank God. We all fully appreciate the part you played in bringing it to a satisfactory conclusion.

There are seven families, the largest holder of whom had 21 statute acres, in Island, Newmarket, on which to earn a living, who now have been given an opportunity of making a living in the district.

There is very little use in formulating a land policy unless the people are given the opportunity of making a livelihood. That is why I said here that if Deputy Dillon had his way, there would be no beet factories, there would be no employment on that land, there would be none of the new vegetable processing factories which are now revolutionising the position of farmers.

An Ceann Comhairle

That is irrelevant to this Estimate.

Mr. Corry

I know it is. I was told so. There would be no hope of their getting employment. In respect of the Ballymacoda district, I had a similar experience recently. The Minister stepped in there again and acquired a holding in an area which is as congested as County Mayo. There are small farmers in that area who cannot get a livelihood on the acres they have.

I suggest to the Minister that in the areas I have mentioned, he should endeavour to remove some of the tenants to other places. There is no use in my saying that to the Minister if I cannot suggest some place to which he can take them. I suggest he should bend his activities in the direction of another foreigner who has acquired a large area of land in my constituency. I refer to the foreigner known as the Oil Refinery Company. They have pared off all the land they require themselves, some 200 odd acres, but there are 1,000 acres in their possession as well which for the past five years have been let in conacre. They have been let again now for conacre for another four years. Whilst I am faced in my constituency with tenants endeavouring to knock a livelihood out of 15 to 20 acres, I hold it is unjust that 1,000 acres of our land should be held by a foreigner like the oil refinery, let each year in conacre. For four years, year after year, wheat or barley was taken off that land in succession. Then, God between us and all harm, they let the Man Above grass it. They put in no grass seed and they let the grazing of the weeds for another year; and, last October, they came along and advertised the thousand acres again for grazing and tillage.

I do not care under what conditions the land is held. I look this in the face. I go out into Meelin, Rockchapel, Burnfort and Newmarket and look at the people there endeavouring to raise families on smallholdings while those thousand acres are lying there, being set every year. I say to the Minister: "There is the land. There are the people to shift into it. Shift them, in God's name, and put an end to the farce that has been going on there." I know the Minister is a man of courage. I know he is a man who is not stopped by obstacles in his path. He has proved that to me. I honestly believe he is the best Minister for Lands we have had since the late Deputy Moylan, God rest his soul. I know I am now appealing to a man who knows the position and realises what it is.

We have these large areas of land. There are a number of them in the eastern portion of my constituency. It is high time they were taken out of circulation and fixed up like the people in The Island and Newmarket were fixed up. Out of 100 acres, the Minister made seven happy families. What could he not do with 1,000 acres? Let him get going on that land. It will not be just the uneconomic smallholders that he will shift out who will benefit; there will also be the making of the other holdings into economic holdings. We have that problem down in Ballymacoda, right along to Ballycotton and back into Goleen. It is not just the Newmarket and Rockchapel people. Something must be done if we are to create economic holdings and keep the people here to work them.

The adoption of a proper policy will completely change the new industry being opened up there. I refer to the factory for the processing of vegetables. If the smallholders are given economic holdings there, they are the people who are accustomed to earning a hard living; they are the people who will appreciate the land when they get it; they are the people who will grow crops on it. It is damnable that for eight or nine years a thousand acres of good land should be used in the manner I have described here. I do not care what means are adopted to get it.

With regard to the model house on display here, I suggest to the Minister that he should speed up the building of two houses on the Molony Estate in Charleville. Two tenants from the Meelin area were to be shifted out there but they could not be shifted because the houses were not built. One of them is a fairly stout fellow. The suggestion I made a while ago about Deputy Blowick and the hallway should be considered by the Minister; perhaps he could widen the hallway a little. The delay in shifting these men may be a small one, but it has held up the shifting of these men for a year now. I ask the Minister to expedite the building of the houses.

I have listened to a great deal of talk about land. Land is a separate thing. Are non-nationals to be allowed in here to take over everything else except the land? I should like to know who are the actual owners of, for example, Switzers, Brown Thomas, Grants in Cork and so on. I suggest the foreigners are coming into places where they are having a very ill effect from the point of view of pushing the sale of non-Irish materials. I do not wish to see any foreigners on land in this country. We have little enough land and we have enough Irishmen to take it all and look after it.

I was asked last Sunday to thank the Minister on behalf of the people of Ballymacoda for the steps he took to acquire the land he acquired there a fortnight ago. These people were like those I have described, living there on uneconomic holdings. The time had come when steps should be taken to remedy that situation. We are thankful that we now have on the job an energetic Minister who will see this thing through.

One other matter I should like to take up with the Minister is the problem of embankments. In at least three or four parts of my constituency that problem has cropped up over the past couple of years. It is not land that could be considered marginal land or derelict land. It is good land, land carrying a poor law valuation of 35/- a statute acre and in regard to hundreds of acres of it practically every two years the embankments give way. In the Carrigtuohill-Glounthane area, some seven or eight embankments gave way last year. I would ask that some joint action should be taken as between the Minister and Deputy O'Malley, the Parliamentary Secretary in charge of the Office of Public Works, so as to ensure that proper embankments will end this state of affairs.

In this connection I have seen one person spending quite an amount of money on 40 acres of land, draining it, cleaning it, fixing it up, putting in seeds and manuring it. The whole job cost over £4,000 and before it was well done, the tide came in, the embankments collapsed and he has spent the past 12 months with his land under water there. These are conditions in which farmers cannot carry on. There is a fairly simple remedy and it rests with the Land Commission and the Parliamentary Secretary to remedy it.

There is good land in this country. Let us see that our own people enjoy it and let us endeavour once and for all to get rid of the uneconomic holding. I have seen one estate taken over down in Aghada a number of years ago and the situation there is a very grave one. That land was divided into ten- or 12-acre holdings by the Land Commission in the Cumann na nGaedheal days. These unfortunate people are there looking over the fence at the thousand acres I mentioned a while ago and waiting for that land to be divided up.

I want to thank the Minister again for his activities on behalf of my constituents and for the assistance he has given to them. A breath of hope and joy came to my constituency, once we saw the Minister getting to work, and I am sure he will continue the job to the satisfaction of everyone.

Mr. McQuillan

I could not agree more than I do with the sentiments expressed by the last speaker that the amount of land in this country is little enough and that what is there is necessary for the Irish people. The belief which was prevalent in this country for generations that the land of Ireland should not be for the people of Ireland is one that is or should now be forgotten in so far as the members of this House are concerned.

We have had in the past few years a new firm of auctioneers established in this country, led by no less a personage than the Taoiseach and composed of members of his Cabinet, and their duty has been to hawk the land of this country all over Europe and any place they travel. They have hawked this land to be purchased or to be leased by any type of non-national whom they can attract in here. That is the situation while the Irish people from all parts of rural Ireland are forced to get out and make a living in Britain, the United States or any other State that is willing to take them. Luxury jet planes are travelling here from all parts of the world, particularly from Europe, carrying in wealthy non-nationals to purchase Irish property and Irish land, and the boats are leaving this country carrying the native population into, in many cases, economic serfdom abroad.

The Minister said here last night in the course of his speech that this problem of the purchase of land by non-nationals was not a serious problem and that the people who sought to argue that it was were inaccurate and were misleading and, in fact, trying to panic the public. The Minister is well aware of the fact that very prominent citizens in this country situated, geographically speaking, in widely separated areas have pronounced publicly on this growing menace, namely, the purchase of Irish land by non-nationals.

The Minister suggests that since the new register was made in August, 1961, comprising details of land purchased by non-nationals since 1961, the figure given is a true figure of the purchases of land by non-nationals. It is not an accurate figure, as the Minister knows perfectly well. That figure embraces only land on which the purchase tax of 25 per cent has been paid, but there is no record, as far as I can gather, kept by the Minister in his Department of land which is now being held here by Irish people in trust for the foreigner. The real purchaser has not been disclosed and, therefore, there is no question of a 25 per cent purchase tax being recorded in this register kept by the Minister. That is the position and it is not right for the Minister to suggest that those people who are criticising this purchase of land are inaccurate. It is the Minister who is not in possession of the full facts. It took long enough to force the Minister to keep even this inaccurate or incomplete register which is now available in his Department.

For the benefit of those people, outside this House and inside it, who do not accept what I am stating here and who are prepared to go on the Minister's figures, let me say this to them, that the figure of 11,000 acres which he has given of land on which the 25 per cent purchase tax was paid since 1961 consists to a great extent of agricultural land. If that is the amount of land purchased in the past 18 months, so far as the Minister is concerned, can he deny that a fair average, on his estimation, would be 6,000 acres per year? Taking that figure, we find that since 1950, 72,000 acres of some of the finest land in the country have passed into the hands of non-nationals.

I should like the Minister to do a little arithmetic. If he divides the 72,000 acres by 50-acre holdings, he will see that it would give a hope to at least 1,200 or 1,300 families of providing a livelihood for their children here. That number of families established on such holdings would be a very desirable object to aim at. It would be a wonderful achievement. Twelve hundred families established here on 50-acre holdings would be a far greater asset to Ireland than 50 of the little factories that have been established throughout the country, depending for raw materials on imported commodities. Would it not be a better proposition to spend money on setting up Irish landholders and to give the money now being spent on industries which may be gone tomorrow towards the setting-up of Irish farms on which families would get an opportunity to live and educate their children with a view to fitting them for the best possible life on this earth?

The Minister—and he is no different from his predecessors—has taken the view over the years that the problem of land acquisition by non-nationals is not serious. Might I recall to the Minister that in 1950 the late Commissioner Mansfield at a public meeting in Galway stated that at that time 100,000 acres of the finest land in Ireland had passed into the hands of aliens. I raised the matter in the Dáil with the then Minister for Lands, Deputy Blowick, from whom I got an evasive reply. I had asked what action the Government proposed to take but the one action that was taken was that that Commissioner was sacked by sealed order for making the statement. There was never any question of the Commissioner being inaccurate in his statement; no challenge was issued or rebuttal made in this House of the figure given but there was the suggestion that it was not cricket for a Commissioner to take it upon himself to make an utterance of that kind in public; that his job was to keep his mouth shut and carry out Government policy and not make any statement that might embarrass the Government.

We have the subtle fact emerging that if we accept the Commissioner's word that 100,000 acres of the finest land in the country had been bought by aliens by 1950, we can take it on the average of the Minister's reckoning, that 6,000 acres per year have passed into foreign hands since, and on that basis we can account for 172,000 acres of land lost to the Irish people. That is the minimum figure which must be accepted by anybody, even by supporters of the Minister who are biassed in favour of the Government. I do not accept that figure as representing the true picture which I feel the Government do not want to disclose because they are anxious to bring in Tom, Dick and Harry from Germany, Japan and anywhere abroad to set up little factories here. They fear these people will not come if there is an outcry here about the purchase of land by foreigners.

A Labour Deputy to-day said that he was not worrying about the nationality of the landowner if he gave employment and made good use of the land of the country and that there should be no objection to him. I do not subscribe to that view. This country has not the plains of America or the vast regions of Australia to play about with. Newcomers may be welcome there to develop areas of low population but this country needs the limited amount of land available to provide economic comfort to Irish families living in congested areas for generations. Until their needs are met I am completely opposed to allowing outsiders to buy this land. I do not care who describes me as narrow-minded or anti-alien in my outlook. I am nothing of the kind but I believe in this instance I know the situation and the Irish people deserve priority when land is available rather than have them sent out on the boat for England or elsewhere.

I have been harping on this question for the past 10 years and a few years ago I moved a Private Members' Bill seeking to limit the purchase of land by non-nationals. The Bill dealt with the Aliens Act of 1934 which specifically stated that every non-national who came here would have the same right to buy Irish land as Irish citizens. I believe that section is not justified in our circumstances. It is all right to suggest that reciprocal arrangements are available for Irish people abroad but has anybody heard anything as ridiculous as saying that, because in France, Italy or Germany a non-national would be entitled to buy land, we should follow suit here? How many Irish people since 1934 have been privileged to buy good agricultural land in any of those countries? The Minister needs no assurance, but I can assure him, that if an Irishman sought to buy agricultural land in West Germany today, he would get a very quick answer. If he sought to buy the land in Southern Italy to which Deputy Blowick referred, he probably would not get out of the little village he visited alive. If any European comes here, the Government and crawthumpers all over the country get down on their knees and welcome them and show more regard for them than for the local people.

There was no support here a number of years ago for the Bill which sought to prevent non-nationals from buying agricultural land. It was not revolutionary enough in one sense, but precautions were taken to allow them in to purchase land for industrial purposes. That Bill was thrown out by the Government. We had the situation here a number of years ago in which a bunch of Americans came over and bought some of the most beautiful parts of Killarney. Those who raised the matter in the House at the time, including myself, were described as being traitors to the country for suggesting it was wrong that some of the most beautiful parts of the country should be purchased and exploited by non-nationals.

What happened in Killarney is now happening along the coastline right around the country from Wicklow up to the tip of Donegal. They got a foothold in Killarney and now they have moved all along the coastline. They are moving into the most beautiful areas, buying up the coastline and even restricting Irish people from having a dip by the seaside. I welcome these people here as tourists, but not for the purpose of buying the countryside. They should be warned that this Government will not last forever and that in the not-too-distant future, we may have a Government which will have no compunction in taking back the land from them. There is not the slightest doubt that the day of this Government is over and, whether it be within the next three weeks or 18 months, they are finished for good and all. The tragedy is that so much damage has to be undone as a result of the long lease they have had, destroying the very fabric of the State and selling it for 30 pieces of silver whereever they could get it. We are never short of bluff from the people now in office, never short of a new gimmick to try to mislead the public.

For years in this House, the previous Leader of the Fianna Fáil Party spent his time arguing that the pool of land in this country was not sufficient to relieve congestion. On a dozen occasions, I clashed with him on that in this House. If any Deputy wants to query that, I can show him the pages in the various Dáil debates where the previous Leader of the Fianna Fáil Party said the Government were anxious to relieve congestion, to establish as many economic holdings as possible, but that it could not be done because the pool of land available was not sufficient for the purpose. That was accepted as an article of faith by the Fianna Fáil Party and was expounded at meetings of supporters down the country in order to create a feeling of resignation among the smallholders. They were told: "There is not much possibility at the moment, because the pool of land has dried up." That was the propaganda. At that time an economic holding, according to Government standards, was about 25 acres and the average size of holding made up by the Land Commission was 23 acres.

What has happened since? We have the remnants of Fianna Fáil telling the House that it is now their intention to make 45- or 50-acre holdings. This comes from a Party who could not get land to make a 23-acre holding to relieve congestion. All of a sudden out of the hat, they are able to produce a 45-acre holding. Where is the land coming from? Have they discovered a vast area of unknown land, or have we annexed some other country? It is like the miracle of the loaves and fishes. The small farmers and congests are entitled to be told the truth at this stage.

I feel like losing my temper when I find we still have people in this country prepared to swallow all the propaganda and nonsense poured out of Fianna Fáil headquarters. Now we are going to bring a new land pool into operation, create 45-acre holdings and everything in the garden will be rosy again. Once more they are prepared to delude the people of rural Ireland into believing they are genuine in their approach to land division. But what is the true position? At the time the former Leader of Fianna Fáil said the pool of land was not sufficient to remedy congestion, there was no problem of the purchase of land by non-nationals and the average size holding was 25 acres. Now we have the position that speculators in this country and non-nationals can buy up all the land they like and the Government, in addition, are going to create a 45-acre or 50-acre holding. Where are they going to get the land? Is it not quite clear that this new Land Bill is absolute nonsense? I do not intend to deal with the Land Bill, but I would like the Government to produce it as soon as possible. We have heard so much about it for the past 12 months that it is time it saw the light of day.

During the past month, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Lands came down to a land meeting in the constituency which he and I represent and, in front of at least 70 people, said that the new Land Bill would be out within three weeks. That was a month ago, at a meeting in the village of Knockcroghery in Roscommon. He could come down there and make that statement and yet the Minister brings in his Estimate without a sign of the Land Bill. What is the hold-up about? One of the points put forward by the Minister and his Parliamentary Secretary is that under the new Act holdings will in future be of 45 to 50 acres of good land. Is it not a fact that there is not the slightest need for new legislation to set up 45-acre holdings? Is it not a fact that the Minister, within the past few months, has stated that already the Land Commission are operating the policy of 45- and 50-acre holdings? Is that not the position?

Mr. Moran

That is so.

Mr. McQuillan

In other words, this new legislation contemplated has no bearing whatsoever on the size of holdings?

Mr. Moran

No, but it has on the provision of the raw material to build up the new holdings. New holdings, under the new policy, are already being created.

Mr. McQuillan

The Minister says the new Land Bill was not necessary as far as the setting up of the new holdings is concerned but that it is necessary in order to get in the land. Then I want to quote from what he said when introducing his Estimate last night:

The transfer of land to new ownership, whether native or foreign, in no way impairs the Land Commission's power to move for the acquisition of property for the relief of congestion, if circumstances should warrant such a course.

According to that statement, the transfer of land to new ownership does not interfere with the powers of acquisition of the Land Commission. Yet we are told that the new Bill is necessary in order to give power to the Minister and to the Commission to acquire land. How can the Minister and the Commission have it both ways? If that power is already there, why is the new Bill necessary? May I say that, perhaps, the real reason for it is to give the Minister power to acquire the small holdings in the West of Ireland which have been set for a number of years because their owners are in England? Is that not the aim of the new legislation?

Mr. Moran

If I am allowed to discuss the new Bill, a Cheann Comhairle, I shall certainly do so, but I understand it is out of order in this debate on the Estimate.

Mr. McQuillan

I am not attempting to discuss the new Land Bill. I am discussing the position as it is in the West of Ireland where there are quite a large number of holdings, ranging from five to 15 acres, set. Why are they set? It is because of economic necessity, because the farmers there, if you could call them farmers, and their families, who tried to eke out an existence on holdings of that size, found themselves unable to do so and have set their lands and gone to England, having waited for years for help from the Land Commission but having found only disillusionment. These men found that the only people being helped were the big people: nobody could get land but the big speculator and the non-national.

These farmers pulled out and set their little bits of land. They are now being looked on as criminals for having deserted the land of Ireland. Many of those congests did their utmost to hang on, with the help of some work from the local county councils and in forestry. That source of additional income has dried up during the past five years because the councils have been directed by the Government to expend huge sums on the acquisition of mammoth machines for road making and other purposes, thus destroying the little extra employment available to those men.

Look at it this way: Government policy has driven those men to England. Now when they have left, and set their little bits of land, still hoping against hope they will be able to come back, in their absence the Minister proposes to acquire their land. For what purpose I do not know. Perhaps it is as a form of bluff. Is it right that these holdings should be taken over in this fashion when we remember the Minister's own assertion when addressing a group of agricultural graduates recently? He said he would get after the so-called farmers in the midlands who spend their time chasing about from one race meeting to another, the punter farmers, the telephone farmers, the ranchers.

Let us be quite clear about this. It is not necessary to introduce new legislation to get after the rancher, the racing farmer, the sporting farmer. He can be got under the existing legislation. Why, therefore, is the new legislation proposed except for the purpose I have referred to—to get after the congest, the smallholder? Publicly, the Government say they will go after the rancher because they know that is popular with the small man, but they intend, at the same time, to bring in legislation to drive the small man out. Is that not the effect of the Minister's statement in his speech last night to which I have already referred?

I will give the Minister an instance. There is outside Strokestown the Walpole Estate of 288 acres of good land. Farmers within a radius of three miles—I emphasise three miles, not one mile—have valuations of under £15 in the majority of cases. Many of them are as low as £7. Within three-and-a-half to four miles, there must be at least 80 holdings of under £14 valuation, many of them again as low as £7. What has happened? For ten years, the Land Commission have been tinkering with the idea of taking over that farm from the owner. A new owner purchased it within the past 18 months.

According to statements that have been made, Commission officials had recommended the acquisition of that farm for division purposes, but it was not acquired. A new owner is in possession and all the smallholders in the locality who have been waiting patiently for years have no alternative now. There is no possibility of these people ever being given the 50-acre holdings which this Government have promised them. Why was that farm not acquired if the Minister's statement last night was correct—that the transfer of land to new ownership in no way impaired the Land Commission's power to move for the acquisition of property for the relief of congestion? That is the position so far as we are concerned, and that is the position so far as we have been told in reply to questions in this House. When the Minister wants to give the idea for public consumption that he has the power to acquire land, he makes blanket statements which he hopes will be accepted without query.

I want now to refer to something that is upsetting the small farmers. The Minister must be aware that in the past 12 months a tremendous amount of land has changed hands. There are speculators—that is all I can describe them as—buying land in the belief that now is the time to buy because when the Land Bill is introduced it will not be possible to do so. They are persuading people who do not seem to know any better to sell their land, and they are telling them that if they wait the Land Commission will take it from them. Several farms have changed hands in the past few months in the west.

The Minister is doing a disservice to the people by leaving them hanging in mid-air in that regard. He would be doing a good day's work if he made it quite clear to the people who have bought land in that fashion in the past 12 months that there is no guarantee that they will be left on that land because of the advantage they took of some unfortunate farmers. They bought the land because they had spare cash or because they believe land is a good investment. The Minister must tackle that matter. He need not wait for a new Land Bill before tackling it.

It is time a proper land policy was thought out. It is time a land policy was put before the House and examined to find out how many Deputies would agree with it. I believe that in existing circumstances there must be a ceiling on the amount of land held by any individual. I have said that for years and I am glad to find I am in very good company. The Bishop of Cork, Most Reverend Dr. Lucey, said, as reported in today's Irish Press:

Unlike other forms of property holding, the amount of land for ownership was static, and the more one person took, the less remained for division among others.

When you examine that statement, you find that the Bishop is worried about the idea of any individual being in a position to buy up all the land he likes, because he has the money to buy it. This is not like a business deal or a stock exchange deal. There is only a certain amount of land available, and it is necessary for the good of the community that it should be held in as wide ownership as possible. In those circumstances, I do not think it revolutionary to suggest that a halt should be put to the gallop of those people who want to buy up land, left, right and centre. They should not be allowed to get their hands on the greatest amount of land they can, to the detriment of the remainder of the community. The Government should outline their policy in that regard. They have sheered away from it for years.

The Government maintain that they have made more money available for land division than any other Government. When you examine the value of money and the value of land, you find that claim by the Government is completely nonsensical. The value of land has gone up threefold in the past ten years. I agree that the amount of money made available has gone up also, but the value of the £ has gone down so, in actual fact, when you work it out you find that less money is being made available for the purchase of land than was made available in 1937 and 1938. It is no good for the Government to try to bluff the public that that is not so.

The Government are successful as publicity agents. They are the most successful bunch of advertising agents I have ever come across. At an election there is no need for them to go to any outside advertising group or commercial group to advertise their abilities. They are the best self-advertising bunch I have ever seen. The trouble is that the advertised picture is far different from the reality. They are far better at advertising what they have done than actually doing it. The results are to be seen in rural Ireland in the deserted houses.

I speak now to be on record in case we have, as I hope, a change of Government within the next 18 months I believe it is on the way. I hope whatever Government come in will not start playing games with the small farmers and saying they are the people who will help them. With the developments that have taken place and the modern amenities which are available to the community to study the situation in other countries, I do not think the public will be bluffed or deluded by any Government. I do not say it would be the intention of another Government to do so. Some alternative policy to the Government's policy must be put forward by those who seek office, and that alternative policy must refer specifically to the use of the land of Ireland.

There must be a clear policy on the question of dovetailing the activities of the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Lands. It must be made quite clear that the two Departments should work hand in hand and not as two separate outfits as they are now. There must also be close collaboration with the Department of Local Government. There is less justification for having a Minister for Lands than there is for having a Minister in charge of the Office of Public Works. There is more justification for having a Minister in charge of the Office of Public Works than there is for having a Minister for Lands.

As we have seen, the Minister for Lands is a rubber stamp. He cannot interfere on the question of the amount of land to be divided. He merely acts as a mouthpiece in this House. I know it is very useful to blame the Land Commission. The Government and their supporters blame the Land Commission for any delay that takes place, but we must realise that if the Land Commission got the funds—got plenty of money—and the blood, they would do the circulation themselves. They are not getting it. Of course, that is Government policy: Do not give them the money but blame the Land Commission for the slowness. They have got away with that over the years. It would be highly desirable to examine the possibility of putting the Land Commission in as part of the Department of Agriculture and putting a Parliamentary Secretary in charge of it, under the Minister for Agriculture.

One other point I want to raise is in relation to game rights. Let me say to the Minister that there is no use howling about the poacher and threatening him with all sorts of penalties. Poaching is still a popular business in Ireland, whether it is in regard to shooting or fishing. The reason for that is quite apparent and understandable. Vast areas of lakeside, river, mountain and moorland are held, and very strictly held, by non-nationals, and the local people are nothing but ghillies or boatmen or servants for the gentlemen who come from abroad to fish on some of the best fishing grounds in Europe or to shoot over some of the best gameland in the world.

Large sections of the countryside, of the lakes and of the rivers, are cut off from the Irish people. The Minister exhorts the poacher to stop his nefarious work, that it is not cricket. The poacher is not going to be deluded by the Minister or answer an appeal by him, because apart from this situation, we also have the position to which another Deputy referred briefly, that is, that many small farmers have not got the shooting or fishing rights on the land they have been given by the Land Commission. The rights are either held by the Land Commission or by the former owner of the land. In many cases when the Land Commission acquired the land from Lord So-and-So, they left him the shooting rights and divided the land among smallholders in the vicinity. The former owner and his friends can still shoot over that land which is now in the possession of the small farmers. That should never have been allowed happen and before the Minister makes further appeals, it should be remedied and the smallholder should be given the full rights over his property. That step should be taken by the Land Commission in these two instances.

Now let me come to the vote itself. First, I want to compliment the Land Commission on the work in connection with the Shannon flooding. As far as they have gone, they have done good work but they have not gone fast enough. I urge the Land Commission to speed up the work of resettlement of holdings on the Shannon banks. Let us hope we shall not be faced with any return of the flooding, but there is always that danger.

Next comes the question of compensation to employees on estates acquired. The Minister tells us that since 1950 a certain sum has been paid by the Land Commission to former employees. I urge the Government and the Land Commission where at all practicable, to offer land to the employee, especially if he is a married man with a family and has been working on the estate. If he shows any ability to work a farm, he should get one.

The Minister tells us that £7,004 was paid in cash to 34 ex-employees, which represents an average of £206 each. That confirms what I already knew, namely that there were some payments considerably lower than £206. To consider it reasonable that an employee entitled to compensation should get a sum lower than £206 is surely an outrage. What will £206 do for any man today who has lost his employment? I urge the Land Commission and the Minister to see to it that, if such persons would not be suitable farmers or would not be capable of working land, reasonable compensation is paid in all cases.

The Minister stated that, since 1950, no fewer than 279 persons were displaced and that the total amount spent is £37,146, an average of £133. That again, means that a considerable number received less than £133. It means that much smaller sums than £133 were paid in compensation for the loss of employment.

I am glad the Land Commission at last realise that a farmer who gets a new holding should have a house with all the necessary amenities. The time has come when houses built over the years, which have not yet those necessary amenities, should have them installed. Even though grants are available from the Department of Local Government and elsewhere it is important that these houses should be brought up to the required standard.

Where lands have been acquired through the migration of the owners and when there are substantial houses on such lands, I urge the Land Commission not to retain them too long but to dispose of them quickly. I am aware of a few such houses that were in good condition but, because of the length of time they were retained in the custody of the Land Commission, they deteriorated very substantially. There was one that had recently been renovated with the help of Local Government grants and a substantial amount of expenditure by the owner. For historic reasons, I should like to see that house remain. I regret to say that the roof is now off. I wrote to the Secretary of the Land Commission urging the speedy sale of that house but, for reasons which I suppose could not be overcome, it was not done. In my opinion, such houses could be sold with a small plot to suitable persons. Even if a foreigner wanted this house, I would let him buy it. I would not have any objection to a foreigner acquiring that type of residence.

There is a substantial body of opinion that aliens are buying very large tracts of land and it is alleged that there are auctioneers who have orders on their books for substantial tracts and that these auctioneers are working very hard to get people to offer large tracts for sale. When I say large tracts, I mean a farm of up to 400 acres. Apparently, foreigners are not interested in anything under 400 acres. A 400-acre farm would be a valuable asset to the Land Commission. Purchases by foreigners are pushing up the price of these lands very substantially.

The statement of the Minister that the number of acres purchased by foreigners amounts to a very small fraction of our land will, I hope, allay the fear that a great number of people have, but when people in responsible positions assert that large areas have been bought by foreigners, there must be something in it. I do not know how the Minister or the Government would allay the fear that exists, but I hope the Minister will be as truculent in allaying it as he was a few moments ago. If he thumps the table often enough, he may be believed.

Over the years, the Land Commission have carried out a very difficult task. Any Government or any group of men who had a land policy to carry out in this country and who tried to please everybody would have to be more than angels. It is not humanly possible to divide an estate and to give satisfaction to everybody. I am satisfied that the Land Commission have done and are doing a good job of work. Notwithstanding the charge made at the meeting of the Longford executive of Fianna Fáil that the Land Commission were anti-Fianna Fáil and that they were pro-this and pro-that, if I had the opportunity of criticising the Land Commission, I would say that they were anti-Fine Gael, but when one finds them anti-everybody, one must come to the conclusion that they are doing a reasonable job of work.

Mr. Donnellan

There is one question I must ask the Minister. I am very sorry that he is not here to listen to me. It is in connection with this new Land Bill we were told about by the Taoiseach when he was in Thurles. The words were no sooner out of his mouth than the Minister for Lands got on the trail. If he did not use it for political purposes, no man ever did. He went further than the Minister for Education went within the past week or ten days in a certain direction.

I accuse the Minister for Lands of being dishonest. I accuse him of telling lies——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy must withdraw that.

Mr. Donnellan

I am sorry, Sir— telling untruths. Before we rose for the Easter recess, a question was put down by a Deputy on the Minister's side asking him to state when he intended to introduce the new Land Bill and the reply was, "Before we rise for Easter". Easter came, but the Bill did not come. It was not even introduced. Soon after Easter, I was compelled by local pressure to put down a question to the Minister as to when it was hoped the Bill would be introduced. The reply was that it would be introduced before the summer recess.

The Minister reminds me of a horse that was engaged to run in the Derby yesterday, a horse called Hullabaloo. It failed to start. The Minister for Lands has failed to start in the case of this new Land Bill. He will never break the tapes. It was not bred in him to do that as far as the tenant farmers are concerned, any more than it was bred in Hullabaloo to race in the Derby yesterday.

Of course, his few Deputies down the country did not fail to make plenty of propaganda out of the new Land Bill that was to come in. Every man who wanted a bit of his neighbour's land, probably, in many cases, dishonestly, was to have a Land Bill of his own. The result was that there were so many Land Bills to be introduced that one would not know where it was going to end.

I want to know now from the Minister if it is all a figment of his imagination. I believe it is. When I put down a question to the Minister a month ago in connection with the new Land Bill, the Minister was everything but nice. I could not understand why. In reply to a supplementary question of mine, he said: "The Deputy had better be careful or he may never find himself in this House again"—the Land Bill was going to be so good.

As Deputy Flanagan said here on another Estimate a few days ago, it is always jam yesterday and jam to-morrow but never jam to-day. Of course, Deputy Kitt was not idle in North Galway. There is no danger that he would be idle when it came to talking about the new Land Bill and what it was going to do for the people. Deputy Kitt, who has no land, of course, would love to divide his neighbours' land. As a matter of fact, my nextdoor neighbours, my best supporters, were inveigled, along with a few touts, to go to him about the division of land. Not alone was he going to get this land—I shall name the owner of it later—taken over but he also told them how much each of them would get. Not alone was he going to have it acquired, for which he had no authority, as Deputy MacEoin explained, but he was going to allocate it. These people, including my nextdoor neighbour, were foolish enough to allow him to come down to a meeting. He began by inquiring about the valuations and how much each had, and I suppose he may get a few dishonest votes as a result of that.

I see here in the Official Report the Minister for Lands saying that Fine Gael always wanted the rogue's vote; it was better than no vote. Deputy Kitt wants the dishonest vote. He wants the vote of the man who wants to grab his neighbour's land. In my opinion, that is the most despicable type of vote that could be captured in this country. I warn the Minister for Lands. I knew a Deputy in North Galway long before Deputy Kitt appeared in the field; when he used to hear of land to be divided, he would go into the village, sit down at some fireside and begin to tell everybody the piece he was going to get. He did not last. He was dishonest and the people found him out. I warn Deputy Kitt to be careful in pursuing the antics he has started with regard to this new Land Bill, if it is ever introduced. I should like to see it. I should like to know what is in it. I think the Minister for Lands is a disgrace. I heard him on a public platform in the square of Tuam and, if ever there was a sewer pipe let loose, it was the Minister for Lands. The way he carries on publicly is a disgrace to any Government.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy should not liken any Deputy to a sewer pipe.

Mr. Donnellan

I cannot help it.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

It is not in order.

Mr. Donnellan

There are plenty of Land Acts, goodness knows, and I should like to know why the Land Commission refuse to take over three holdings offered to them at Carrantrilla, Lisroe and Cloonmore by a man named Gleeson. He is a neighbour of mine. He is the individual with whom Deputy Kitt is trying to truck. I offered that man's three holdings to the Land Commission. They called and inspected the lands nearly 12 months ago. They have not yet taken them over. The owner who has bought a place in the midlands, wants to get rid of them. The people who are being mislead by Deputy Kitt, and the likes of him, need the land. Why do not the Land Commission take these lands over under Section 27 of the 1950 Act? There was no greater critic of that Act than the Minister; he said it could never operate, but, when a question is put down to him about Longford, he admits thousands of acres were bought under Deputy Blowick's Land Act.

I should like to know why the Land Commission will not take over these three holdings which have been offered voluntarily to them. The same position obtains with regard to the Smith Estate at Colemanstown, outside Ballinasloe. Over 300 acres of land are involved. The owner died and his widow offered the land to the Land Commission 12 months ago. That land has not been taken over. Then we are told the new Land Bill will cure all our ills, according to the Minister and his lieutenants down the country.

With regard to the general working of the Land Commission, I have very little fault to find. The officials are doing their work honestly. One thing I despise, that is, any Deputy, or any Minister for Lands, saying that he is in a position to dictate to the Land Commission as to what land should be acquired or to whom the land should be allocated. It would be a bad day for this country if that should ever be the position because there could be no continuity of tenure. Every politician would give land to his own supporters and would not give a damn about anybody else. It is not the people who need land most and who would look after it best who would get it; it would be the political touts of whatever Party was in power. That would be a bad day for the tenant farmers. Some make bad use of land and the Land Commission must have regard to such factors.

According to the Taoiseach and according to the Minister, everybody must have 40 to 50 acres. If every uneconomic holder is to be brought up to 40 or 50 acres of land, where is the land to come from? That was the statement of the Minister for Lands. That was the statement of the Taoiseach in Tipperary. Is the Minister deceiving the country and the House as much as when he told them the Land Bill would be introduced before Easter? This Land Bill is too well used in politics. It is too well used in the west of Ireland and elsewhere to deceive the people, and the sooner it appears the better. I shall not give the Minister an hour's contentment until that so-called Land Bill is introduced and until we have a debate on it. I sincerely hope it will undo half the bad work that Deputy Moran's predecessors did in this country against the small tenant farmers.

Mr. Medlar

I wish to bring to the notice of the Minister a matter which I think is peculiar to the people of my constituency. In addition to uneconomic holders there is a large number of cottiers and landless men who earn their livelihood through conacre farming. They pay up to £40 per acre rent for this land and work it according to the rules of good husbandry. They sow beet and peas as cash crops and swedes and kale for livestock. These people are surely an asset to any community and are the type that Deputy Donnellan mentioned should receive first consideration. There are organisations in this country who are pressing the powers that be to give pilot farms to young men who may qualify through certain agricultural schools.

Mr. Donnellan

That was Deputy Dillon's scheme.

Mr. Medlar

I am interested in the type of people who have qualified in the school of adversity, who have proved over generations that they are capable of rearing their families under the handicap of paying this high rent. Nevertheless at the present time they are not considered for other allotments or holdings! The result is that when the Land Commission acquire estates they deprive this group of people of their livelihood. They are drying up the pool of land from which these people derived their livelihood and force them to emigrate, and instead of the natives of these districts being permitted to carry on their usual occupation of farming, migrant families from Deputy Donnellan's county are brought in and placed in holdings. Through no fault of their own but because of their traditional upbringing they are unsuitable for farming and the breadwinners of these families also emigrate to the detriment of the country as a whole. Therefore I would ask the Minister to consider sympathetically the allotment of land to people in my constituency who are qualified to work it.

Another matter to which I wish to draw the Minister's attention is that where land is being divided an uneconomic holder living over a mile away will not qualify. I submit that with the advent of mechanisation this distance could be increased to two miles without appreciably increasing production costs. It certainly would reduce Land Commission costs in so far as they would not have to build as many houses for migrants as they would be leaving people in their own native districts.

Mr. Tully

I am very glad to find somebody in the Fianna Fáil benches who agrees with me in regard to migrants.

Mr. Dillon

I am glad to hear a member of the Fianna Fáil Party commending to the Government the proposal we made as to the desirability of providing for young men who have been trained either in apprenticeship to their parents or in agricultural schools and wish to set up on their own instead of being driven to emigration, by authorising the Land Commission to lease them farms in suitable circumstances in order to allow them to earn their living at home. It is an embarrassment to us as an Opposition but an encouraging embarrassment to find members of the Government Party lining up behind us in advocating this reform.

Mr. Tully

Ní hé sin an rud a dúirt sé.

Mr. Dillon

Creidim gurb é. He advocated the creation of farms for leasing to young men who wanted to set up on their own and who were not in a position to acquire farms until they had been given an opportunity of getting their feet under them. That is a procedure which is well worthy of further investigation by the Land Commission.

I agree with some of the views that have been expressed about the dilatory conduct of the Minister for Lands in producing a Bill about which there has been so much talk. It was on the 14th August last the Taoiseach delegated to his son-in-law the duty of reading a speech for him at a meeting of the Muintir na Tíre Rural Week in Thurles when he announced that the Minister for Lands would introduce a new Land Bill which was going to do a number of wonderful things. One of them was that where farms were enlarged to the new standard the State would contribute 50 per cent of the purchase price plus the cost of improvements. He seemed to be quite unconscious of the fact that under the Land Act of 1933 there is already a statutory obligation to do it. Another proposal was that the Land Commission would be empowered to re-occupy farms not properly worked or left vacant. They have that power since 1947.

"Legislation to purchase holdings from elderly or incapacitated owners is envisaged." I do not know what restriction there is on the Land Commission from buying such holdings since the 1950 Land Act was passed at the instance of Deputy Blowick. In fact, Deputy Blowick was very harshly criticised here by some Fianna Fáil Deputies for providing the Land Commission with such powers to buy these holdings, either by the issuance of land stock or for cash at public auctions. I am sure Deputy P.J. Burke, fresh from the seaside at Balbriggan, will be shocked to recall— and I cannot imagine what the Balbriggan widow will say when her attention is directed to the fact—that on that historic occasion the Taoiseach also said that interest-free loans would be available to young landowners to sell their farms to the Land Commission and buy land elsewhere.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.

Dáil Éireann debate - Thursday, 30 May 1963