A Land Bill in any country is a very important measure but in this country it is something that should be handled with great care. There is one fact of fundamental importance here, that is, that no amount of talk will increase the amount of land available for distribution and no number of Land Bills will make the pool of land available any bigger. I take it that the Land Commission have been using all their efforts over the years to make available as much land as they could reasonably take in for the purpose set out in this Bill.
The Minister traces the background of this Bill which, he states, is the reason for its introduction. I think he will agree that the background of the Bill is an historical one, one that we in this country can only describe as land hunger. Land is something for which the people of this country have always been fighting, something that has brought both joy and sorrow to a great many people. At no stage will the claims of people for land be fully satisfied.
The foundation of this Bill is the report of the Commission on Small Farms which inquired into the situation in the west of Ireland, the situation in what are referred to as the congested districts. That is the historical problem created for us in the past and it is because of that historical problem that the great struggle, led by Michael Davitt and the people of the Land War, began. It was these people who fought for the three Fs which have always been the keystone of Irish land policy. That is something that will always be cherished by the people. Every student of history, whether the most amateur type or those who have gone more deeply into it, will find that the three Fs are still the basic keystone of land policy.
When I look at that and hear the Minister saying he is now seeking to hammer out a new deal for the small farmer and that at this stage the plan is based on traditional farming which would provide for the farmer the same standard of living as that enjoyed by his counterpart in industry, I am very concerned. That, indeed, may be the aim and I personally hope the Minister can achieve it, but I doubt very much so in the circumstances of our country and because of the number of holdings which are so small and unsuitably situated.
The Minister's aim is to provide holdings of from 40 to 45 acres of good land. If we are to have holdings of from 40 to 45 acres of good land in this country generally, I should like to know from the Minister what would be the aggregate size of the standard farm on the western seaboard, taking a line from Lough Swilly to Cork Harbour, which would provide that acreage of good land. Taking the Second Schedule to the Bill, I notice that the Minister lists a number of counties and districts as being within the congested area.
I was amazed, to say the least, to find that in his list of other areas, the Minister mentions east Munster. Generally in Munster, we regard east Munster as being that portion of Munster which traditionally contains the better land. I can take my constituency of West Limerick as not being in east Munster. In fact, I claim it to be as congested as any portion of any county along the western seaboard.
County Limerick has a total of 17,000 holdings and the statistics show that of that number, and this includes east Limerick, 8,992 are under 30 acres. If I am to relate the problem being tackled by the Bill to the question of what will happen in relation to these small holdings, I can see the immensity of the problem for the Land Commission in that area alone. In fact, I cannot see how a solution is physically possible unless we are to take the people from that area and place them elsewhere. But, of course, they are not included in the Schedule and I want to know from the Minister if this means they are to be excluded from national land policy.
Does it mean that the people in that portion of our national territory are not to be the care or concern of this Land Bill? In this context I must associate the people of my constituency with the advise we give to people in the country generally to remain on the land and found families. I know, and the Minister knows, that under Land Commission policy as administered at the present time, a young man coming off his father's farm has no entitlement to land. Should there be two or three sons on a farm of 30 acres they cannot remain there—two of them at least must leave. At the moment, however, those two have no qualification, no matter how much time they have spent following the avocation of farming, to receive a holding from the Land Commission.
The only other thing open to them is industry or their capacity to convince some bank manager that they are creditworthy. If a piece of land becomes available they might succeed in buying it. Does this Bill decide that people in my constituency who are eager, able and willing to work a holding, may not compete for such a piece of land if they can induce their neighbour to sell it to them? What is to be the solution in so far as such young people are concerned?
There is still another facet of this problem. In my constituency, as in all southern constituencies, the backbone of the farming way of life is dairying. It has been a tradition over the centuries that there is dairying in Munster. A man may take a portion of land, a farm, and work that and put cattle on it. Indeed, at times, he might take over the cattle which are on the land, care for them, milk them, thus providing a living for himself and his family, paying the owner for the use of the land.
The question of equities is raised in this Bill and the solutions which existed in the past to the question of renting land would seem to be wiped out now. In this matter what is to be the position of the dairy farmers? I asked the Minister previously what was to become of that type of letting and the Minister said there could be letting of land up to ten years or so without in any way impairing the prospects of the owner of the land concerned. Dairy farmers have traditionally been associated with this type of land utility— they have raised families in that way —and when the farm which they were concerned with was sold they would have to go out and look for another.
What will remain for such people if they can no longer rely on such a tradition of earning a livelihood? I want clarification on these matters from the Minister. I want to know what will be the position in my constituency when this Land Bill is passed. How much does this Bill hold for the people who have been following this traditional way of life? What does it hold for the large number of smallholders in my constituency or for the young men now growing up on these holdings and who hope to acquire land in the area in which they have been born and lived? It is a question of the amount of land available. I do not know what solution can be found, whether we should take these people out of the place or not.
When you see the provision in the Bill regarding money to enable people in the congested areas to obtain a viable farm elsewhere, you wonder will this concession be available to areas where I think the Minister will find there is great congestion. The Department officials will be able to tell the Minister about this but I suggest that if you draw a line from Foynes in County Limerick to Newcastlewest and the Mullaghradharc Mountains and take the territory to the west of it you will find at least as many small farms in that part of the constituency of West Limerick as anywhere else. Will these people be given the same facility regarding the provision of capital to enable them to obtain viable farms elsewhere?
I want to hear from the Minister when the money is made available to purchase farms, how will that fit in with the limitation of sale as I gather permission will have to be obtained from the Land Commission for sales? Do the Land Commission intend to acquire the farms and, if so, on what system do they propose to sell or let them? What criteria will they use to distinguish between applicants from different places? Will there be a weighting of the scales in the case of applicants from one part of the country as against others? Will each applicant be considered on his merits? The restriction on sale or letting is something I think the Minister should consider and I ask him to do so very carefully from the point of view of the young men who are on the land at present and for whom holdings are not available under present Land Commission policy. Are they to be left in the position that if they get a loan or put money together, they will not have a free-sale market in which they may bid for whatever land is offered? That is very important. Free sale does not always apply only where the person selling is concerned; it can also apply so far as the number trying to buy are concerned. It works in both directions and I should like the Minister to consider that because I believe his aim of settling a strong rural population in the country is tremendously important. That population, unfortunately, is not as strong as we would wish it to be. It has engaged the attention of sociologists and others interested in the flight from the land. Will this Bill do what the Minister intends and believes it will do—halt the flight from the land? Will it put more people on the land and will they be the vigorous type of farmer that the Minister is concerned about?
We provide means in the Bill for people who become decrepit or disabled to deal with their land, but do we make it any easier for the younger, virile people to take possession of the land any earlier and at a time when they are most eager and able to establish a strong rural population? Are we giving an opportunity for that to come about or are we closing an avenue that was already open to them? I do not suggest that is the case but I should like the matter to be examined to see if there is a solution to the problem in the type of areas and for the type of people for whom I speak.
The relief of congestion is a big problem in the west, in Kerry, Cork and elsewhere and would require a great amount of land. If the problem was to be dealt with in its entirety it would need the rest of the land of the country to do it. But the other provinces also have pockets of congestion such as the cases to which Deputy Dolan referred when he asked for the inclusion of Cavan in the schedule of areas to which the benefits of this measure will apply.
I cannot follow the argument at present as to why halving the annuities would apply in one case where a person gets additional land and would not apply in other cases. The fact that people get additions of land seems to me sufficient proof that they have not viable holdings. If a man gets additional land from the Land Commission, obviously he was not an economic landowner up to that and the Land Commission are attempting to put him in a position to earn a livelihood for himself and his family. If, in one case you remove people and give them viable holdings on the halved annunity system, it does not seem logical to me that certain people in my constituency should be given additional land but should pay the whole annuity.
If in any constituency where land is available surplus to the requirements of the smallholders and a cottier gets a portion of it, I take it he gets it because he has shown himself to be industrious, because his family circumstances are such that he is considered to be entitled to it to supplement his ordinary way of life, and I suggest these people are a very important section of the community in the development of a strong rural population and a viable farm economy. Again I cannot see why there should not be equality for these people in this regard. In regard to the measure which the Minister for Social Welfare will introduce, something which is certainly very desirable from the point of view of getting the old people off the land, I wonder in what way can the removal of £156 for the purposes of the means test be justified in this case when we do not allow it in other cases? That, however, is something that can be discussed when the measure comes before the House.
I should like to hear from the Minister in regard to Sections 9 and 10. Section 9 provides that local authorities and other interested statutory bodies may make payments towards the cost of marine embankment repairs, et cetera. I suppose if it is a pious wish that they may make them it will be all right, but if they do not have the desire to make them, is it intended in this Bill that there should be some kind of pressure exerted to make them provide contributions for this type of work? The Minister will be able to inform me on this matter when he is replying. In Section 10, the Minister absolves himself and the Land Commission from any responsibility for works done but if I take the two sections together it seems to me it is a question of the local authority giving, but the other side may not pay. Perhaps I am misreading it, but I have looked at the two sections and I would like to have the matter clarified.
If it is the intention that one side should claim for work done, and if the local authority derive a benefit from it—if the land owners within the ambit of a particular local authority benefit, they may say their holdings have been improved—the local authority may be asked for a contribution. Again, if it holds on one side, it ought hold on the other. If the Land Commission have been negligent and if something has happened which has caused any loss, the Land Commission should face that problem and from the national point of view, should make good the damage. They can make good the damage more easily than can the local authority from the funds available for these types of work.
Section 12 provides that the sub-division, letting and sub-lettings of all agricultural land in the State shall be subject to Land Commission consent. I can see the force of fragmentation. Away back in history, it was the declared policy at one time that the mere Irish had to divide up their holdings between their children and this created a problem the legacy of which still remains with us. Is any normal father who is a farmer and who has a holding and who cannot under the present policy see any other opening for two sons than working on the land, to be free to break up a holding between the two sons? If he has a holding of 70 or 80 acres or more, is he to be prevented from giving them each 40 or 45 acres which the Minister says would be a viable farm of good land?
These are some of the points that come into my mind on reading this Bill. The land policy is a problem which is very vexed. I do not believe anybody or any politician would deliberately get into the land question because he generally finishes up badly. It is something that does not repay him in any way and whatever effort the Minister may make will, I suppose, inevitably be open to criticism. I am not raising these points merely for the sake of criticism but in relation to my own constituency where we have a problem as, I am sure, other constituencies have also. I do not see this Land Bill doing anything for the smallholders of my constituency. As the Bill stands, I do not see it holding out any hope to them of enlargement, of removal or the creation of viable holdings. I want to put that to the Minister because I seek their inclusion in whatever amelioration the Minister is able to bring the smallholders in this measure.
I also want to put to the Minister the case I have mentioned of young men who are on farms at present but who are not eligible in regard to the division of land in their area because they are regarded as landless. This is something about which I have spoken here on many occasions. I do not know how it can be solved. On previous occasions, I suggested, and I suggest again now, to the Minister, although I do not see how he can make provision for it, that we should have some system whereby there could be an apprenticeship on farms and if a young man proved himself worthy, by skilled husbandry, he should be entitled to have a holding on the same terms as anybody else: otherwise a large section of the people will be condemned to move off the land and we will remove the virility from the land and from the local population. It is something we will have to face at some stage that even for a relative number of such young people, we must provide an opportunity or an inducement to remain here and to farm.
There is one other facet of this problem I should like to put to the Minister. In my constituency and I am sure in many others, there is this question of smallholders. At the moment, if there are other smallholders within a radius of one mile of the lands being divided, they cannot be considered for additions to their holdings. That is something that will need to be examined from the point of view of the restrictions we propose to apply to lettings or sales of agricultural land. It is the highest ambition of any smallholder, by the hard and relentless work of himself and his family, to put together enough money to enable him to buy an extra plot or two anywhere within two, three or four miles of his home, because that is the only way in which he can raise the standard of living of himself and his family. There is not sufficient land available otherwise for the amelioration of his position. I would wish that we had sufficient land to deal with that problem.
I believe the flight from the land is due to the fact that we have not got enough land. I welcome any measure designed to increase opportunities for a decent livelihood for those on small holdings. I welcome any measure designed to create a virile rural population. In his examination of this Bill, having heard the debate here today, I would appeal to the Minister to have another look at the provisions and ask himself whether they are such as will bring about the kind of amelioration he has in mind. I hope the Minister is not being parochial, if I may use the expression, in his outlook. I hope he is not obsessed solely with the problem of the west. I am sure the Minister appreciates that the problem of the small farmer is not confined to the western seaboard. It is a problem which has its roots deep in history. It exists all over the country. It will require the utmost goodwill, thought, diligence, and work to try to give even a section of our people the living on the land to which they are entitled. I invite the Minister to consider the points I have put before him and I should like his reassurance on some of the matters I have mentioned.