Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 27 Nov 1963

Vol. 206 No. 2

Private Members' Business. - Land Bill, 1963—Second Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time".

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

When the debate was adjourned, I was about to deal with what was described by the Minister as an attractive proposal in relation to the life annuities to be paid in the case of incapacitated, disabled or aged landowners who are to be encouraged to give up their land to the Land Commission for the relief of congestion. The Minister said:

In the case of the elderly owner who has reached or is approaching the age for a non-contributory old age pension, the scheme will carry the special attraction that the first £3 per week of the Land Commission life annuity will not be reckoned for means test purposes.

I fully agree with that. Perhaps the Minister will explain whether, in the case of a husband and wife who are joint owners of a holding, this will be the first £6 per week. I expect that the amount of the annuity will be based on the value and size of the holding which the man is about to give the Land Commission. I am sure the scheme will vary so as to include reasonable provision for the person giving up a reasonably sized holding.

I have been wondering whether the Minister should consider raising this figure to, say, the first £5 per week rather than the first £3. I feel that in itself it will be at least some attraction in assisting people to arrive at a decision about retiring to know that they will have this life annuity which will not interfere to any great extent with their old age pensions. I am glad that the Minister stated that after the passing of this legislation the Minister for Social Welfare will introduce suitable legislation. The Minister and the Land Commission should have as attractive a scheme as possible for the incapacitated farmer who will still have many years to go before getting the old age pension. If we expect him to retire and hand over his holding to the Land Commission for the relief of congestion and if he has no immediate successor, the annuity would want to be well worthwhile. It should be based on the fact that statistics have proved that our people are now living longer than was the case some years ago.

I advise the Minister before announcing the full details of the scheme, and as a measure of goodwill, to have the financial benefits as generous as possible. I can assure the Minister of the support of this side of the House for any scheme which he introduces which will encourage our people to feel that by taking part in it, they will be contributing in no small way towards remedying one of our greatest social problems, the problem of congestion, and in addition, towards their own financial advantage. I am glad that people are being encouraged rather than compelled in this Bill. I hope we will never see the day when any Government or Minister will be given the power to compel people either to retire or to surrender the homes in which they have been born and bred.

I appreciate the difficulty of encouraging people. Older people particularly need encouragement in regard to this matter and I wonder if the encouragement in this Bill will meet with a favourable response. I think it will take some time. I also feel that full details of the scheme should be published so that afterwards it cannot be said that those who surrendered their lands were buying, so to speak, a pig in a poke. All of us have a duty in this matter and it is to encourage people, as far as possible, by sound advice to avail of this proposed scheme.

I should like the Minister to tell the House what types of people will be considered for land in congested districts. The first duty and obligation of the Land Commission will be to look after the local smallholders, that is, people living on small holdings convenient to the estate concerned. Figures showing the numbers of smallholders are very alarming. We have people eking out or trying to eke out an existence on holdings which can be described as miserably small. The big difficulty we have had with many people working those small holdings was that they found it extremely difficult to obtain local employment which would enable them to live in the district.

I find some of these figures astonishing. We have here three great social evils, unemployment, emigration and congestion. They are inter-related. The problem of congestion is of great magnitude and I have been wondering how long it will take to solve it. Consider the position in Cork. It is the largest county in Ireland. There are in Cork 9,814 holdings of less than one acre. We may presume that these people, registered owners of these small holdings, have other employment and are not dependent on the land for a livelihood. Again, in Cork, there are 2,000 holdings from one acre to five acres; there are 2,000 holdings from five acres to ten acres; there are almost 1,500 holdings from ten acres to 15 acres; there are 4,500 holdings from 15 acres to 30 acres; and there are 18,958 holdings under 30 acres. Holdings of under 30 acres are uneconomic and those who own them are entitled to enlargement under this scheme.

In Clare, there are 7,000 holdings under 30 acres. In Kerry, there are almost 4,000 holdings under 30 acres. In Galway, there are 16,500 holdings under 30 acres. In Leitrim, there are 7,777 holdings under 30 acres. In Mayo, the Minister's county, there are 23,101 holdings under 30 acres. In Roscommon, there are 11,350 holdings under 30 acres. In Sligo there are 9,053 holdings under 30 acres. In the entire province of Connacht, there are almost 68,000 holdings under 30 acres.

Mr. Moran

Would the Deputy mind quoting the source of these figures?

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

I am quoting from the survey undertaken by the NFA and Macra na Feirme. In the Twenty-six Counties, we have 234,244 holdings under 30 acres. It is a very interesting figure. The figures quoted show how difficult the problem of relieving congestion is. It is quite impossible to bring every holding up to the standard of 40 to 50 acres. We have not got the land. I should like to know what priorities will be given by the Land Commission. I presume the small holder of 30 acres will be brought up to 45 acres, and likewise the 20 acre holder. That will not cope with the problem of farmers' sons who have been trained on farms, who understand farming, who are fully equipped in modern farming methods, who are anxious to work land, to produce more, to provide themselves with homes into which they can bring a wife and in which they can rear families in Christian decency. There is no provision for these in this Bill.

It is the policy of Fine Gael to operate a scheme whereby such young farmers will get farms at an annual rent or by way of lease, leaving their capital free for stock and equipment. It would be well worth the Minister's while to have consultations with the officials of his Department, with the NFA and Macra na Feirme, to discover the best method of putting the land of this country into the hands of those who will work it.

We have too many smallholders and it is that fact which confronts us now with this terrible problem of congestion. During the last war—every Deputy in this House can vouch for this—it was the smallholder who grew the wheat, the oats, the beet and the barley and saved this country from starvation. The large farmer made his contribution, too; the law was there and he complied with it. It was the small farmer, however, who took off his coat and produced the food for man and beast.

Some Government in the not too distant future will have to tackle courageously the problem of the smallholder. Will this Bill be effective in encouraging people to leave the land rather than stay on it and get their livelihoods from it? We have the lowest marriage rate in the world. That is connected with our land problem. Potential young farmers have no prospects. In conjunction with the proposed scheme, there should be a scheme enabling young farmers to get land. Lands that are let in conacre over a long period, lands that have been purchased by aliens, should be put into the hands of young farmers. The lands could be let at a yearly rent or on lease, giving those who work them the first option on it in the event of their disposal.

The Minister realises it is not easy for any farmer to have the money to buy lands for three or four sons. If he has to raise the money by way of loan, it means it has to be paid back with interest. Instead of having to raise a loan, the farmer's difficulty would be better met by a scheme of loans such as proposed by Fine Gael. In that way, capital would be left available for the purchase of stock and the equipment necessary to work the land properly.

We now have a provision whereby cottage tenants can obtain land. There has been a good deal of confusion in the past as to whether cottage tenants are entitled to land or not. The Land Commission never laid down any regulation debarring cottage tenants. I have seen many of them obtain accommodation lands of from five to ten acres. If the Minister goes to the trouble of finding out how these people work that land, I bet they will give a reasonably good account of themselves.

One section of the community deserving of more consideration in the allotment of land is the Old IRA applicants. Old IRA service should not be forgotten in the allocation of land, providing the applicants are in a position to work the land and live in the vicinity of land being divided. But it cannot be expected that their IRA record can be handed down from father to son, and that the son or grandson is entitled to land. It should apply only to applicants with actual service.

When considering land in this country we can make three classifications: tillage farming; the rearing of cattle for beef for export; and the dairying industry. This Bill should maintain a proper balance between the three. I would not like anything in the Bill to interfere in any way with the dairying industry. The manufacture of butter, cheese, chocolate crumb and other milk products for export is of vital importance. Of equal importance is the production of beef cattle for export. We can boast of being able to export the best beef in the world.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Surely that is the responsibility of another Minister? The Deputy is now going into the realms of agriculture.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

I am sure the Minister appreciates what I want to convey. If we are to send inspectors into a dairying area, special consideration should be given by the Land Commission to the type of farming carried out in an area. One would not expect the Land Commission to act as readily as otherwise in the case of a farmer who, although not engaged in tillage, may be extensively engaged in milk production. It is extremely important that such a man be encouraged by every possible means to continue in his branch of the industry without the threat of Land Commission notices for acquisition. I am sure the Land Commission will have due regard to the circumstances prevailing in each area. I hope the power being invested in senior inspectors will be used with common sense and intelligence in the administration of the scheme. As far as the administration of the scheme is concerned, I know it will be the intention of the Government, as it is the intention of the Opposition, to see that in the acquisition of land, due attention will be given to all the circumstances, particularly the manner in which the lands are being worked.

Time and again the Minister has asked for the opinions of various organisations on other aspects of policy. Before this Land Bill was issued, it should have been the subject of conferences in the Minister's Department with the various national organisations. For example, we do not know if the Minister has consulted Muintir na Tíre or if he has obtained the views of such bodies as the Creamery Milk Suppliers' Association, Macra na Feirme and the NFA. I know the Minister has not got the official view of the auctioneers' association. The auctioneers of this country can be of great assistance to any Minister for Lands and the Land Commission in regard to the acquisition of land, the letting of land, and particularly the circumstances surrounding the letting of land.

The Minister said:

There is the difficulty that not all lettings are to be condemned. If we are to retain a reasonable balance in this matter we must be prepared to make allowance for the good farmer who falls seriously ill at sowing times and for the widow whose family are too young to work the farm. Such people must be free to make temporary lettings without fear of losing their lands.

I could not possibly agree more. That is what I want to convey to this House and what should be conveyed to the country. There are certain cases, special circumstances, in which the Land Commission will be prepared to allow lettings of land to continue. In the case of the death of the father of a young family the widow should not have the threat of Land Commission acquisition proceedings held over her head. It should be made known to her that she is at liberty to retain the lands until one of her sons or daughters, as the case may be, comes of age, and that the Land Commission will not interfere in any way.

There are many cases of the death of a farmer who is the father of a family. The widow should be permitted to set the lands at the best possible price she can get for them and retain the farm until her family have reached an age at which they can take over to replace the father. I am glad that the Minister has made reference to this matter. There are cases where a farmer may suffer a prolonged illness. There are cases where a farmer is not in a position, for one reason or another, to work the lands himself. There may be financial reasons. The Land Commission ought not to take drastic action but should seek advice from people who are in a position to know the circumstances. For example, the local solicitors who would be handling the confidential affairs of such people could give the Land Commission accurate and full details of circumstances that the persons concerned might not wish to be publicly disclosed. Irish people dislike to have their business publicly known or disclosed.

I want to take this opportunity of assuring the Minister that so far as the auctioneers of this country are concerned he can rely on every co-operation with the Land Commission. If the Land Commission are interested in the purchase of any holding, I can assure the Minister that in so far as the general Association of Auctioneers is concerned, if he needs advice and asks for it he will have their full co-operation and support. The reason is that the Minister was reasonable earlier this year when it was decided that for lands purchased by the Land Commission at public sale or by private treaty the Land Commission would pay the auctioneers' fees. That being the case, the Minister and the Land Commission have built up a fund of goodwill and co-operation.

I should be glad if the Land Commission, before taking drastic action in cases where lands are set, would ask the senior inspectors who are given additional powers under this Bill to consult with the auctioneers concerned. There is no auctioneer who will not give fairly and honestly the circumstances in each individual case to the Land Commission. The auctioneers know more than anybody else about the letting of land. They deal more intimately with land owners. They have intimate knowledge of the position of the person taking the land and of the financial circumstances of the farmer on whose behalf they are acting.

For that reason, the views of the auctioneers in charge of the letting of lands should be a very important and serious consideration for the Land Commission. I would ask the Minister to arrange for suitable consultation between the auctioneers and the Land Commission in regard to the letting of lands and, where circumstances do not warrant full time working of the lands in question, that no drastic action be taken by the Land Commission if the circumstances are such as I have mentioned earlier.

This is a Bill which will merit prolonged discussion on Committee Stage. It is a Bill with which we agree in principle and we are prepared to allow the Second Stage to pass without opposition. We have, as I have pointed out, many amendments to suggest on Committee Stage.

I, personally, wish the Minister good luck in any efforts he may make for the relief of congestion. There are a few sections in this Bill which will enable him to deal more speedily with that problem, which is a problem that is near to the heart of every Minister for Lands. It is the big problem that has faced Ministers for Lands in the past and that I am afraid will face Ministers for Lands in future unless it is tackled bravely and courageously. There are many smallholders who wish well to any legislation that would bring about an improvement of their lot. The Bill contains a few rather objectionable clauses which require greater explanation on the part of the Minister. We will go into these matters on Committee Stage. The Bill is long overdue. I hope it will produce the results which the Minister anticipates but I say now, as I said in the commencement of my speech, I think it is too little and too late. The problem of the relief of congestion ought not be tackled in a half-hearted manner. It should be tackled bravely and courageously.

I hope and trust that the powers now being given in this Bill to the Minister will be exercised impartially, fairly and broad-mindedly and will not be exercised with any political bias. I sincerely hope that any action that is taken as a result of this Bill will be taken in all sincerity, with good intention, in the interests of the smallholders, in all cases in which the Land Commission acquire land by agreement and by voluntary sale. In the case of compulsory acquisition, I trust the Minister will ask the Land Commission to be more than reasonable, to give the benefit of the doubt to the land owner at all times on the question of full market value.

If land owners who are anxious to dispose of land, to put land into the pool of land for the relief of congestion, who are retiring from farming or who for one reason or another are putting land on the market are reinforced with the knowledge and confidence in the Land Commission that they will get full market value, that will be a considerable help in obtaining the necessary land in the pool for the purpose for which the Minister desires it.

The prices paid by the Land Commission in recent years have been reasonable. I have never known them to overpay or, so to speak, to spend money unwisely on the purchase of land. They can afford to be a little more generous.

If we are to relieve the congestion problem, it will cost money. If we are to help the smallholders, it will cost money. Let us be prepared to pay full value for the land. For the sake of the relief of congestion, it is worth more to us than for any other purpose. Therefore, the Land Commission should be generous as far as possible, bearing in mind the amount of good which a substantial estate purchased by the Land Commission will do for the community as a whole and for the interests of the people put on the holdings.

The people settled in new homes on such estates will be the parents of children who will attend our schools and churches and build up our parishes. Canon Hayes was right when he said that the principal unit of the community is the parish. We can see it dwindling away. That is bad for the economy, bad for the country. It is unsound and unhealthy. Therefore, the more we do to build up the community in the rural districts and the more we concentrate on them, the better for the country as a whole. We must endeavour to make life more attractive for the people in those areas. We must establish them in new homes where they will rear their families. That should be our aim.

Again, where there are objections or where reasons are put forward by the owner of land as to why it should not be acquired, I trust that in future the Land Commission will be more realistic in their approach. Every one of us in this House must know of cases where the Land Commission refused to acquire lands which they should have acquired and, on the other hand, of cases of land which they acquired and divided but with which they should not have interfered. I cannot say at the moment what motives influenced the Land Commission in that regard but there is ample evidence in rural Ireland that there are many large tracts of land which the Land Commission have refused to acquire for no apparent reason. No reason was made known to the public as to why they did not acquire such lands. In many cases, farms were compulsorily acquired from hardworking, reliable, decent people who worked them well and what matter if congestion were relieved as a result of it, but instead a number of what we can describe as slum holdings were created as a result and the position ultimately became worse than it was originally. That is why, if an owner objects, I think the objection machinery should give him a fair crack of the whip.

With regard to lands that come on the public market, I am sure the Minister will have a fund of goodwill if he is prepared to pay for them. By setting the example of paying full market value, by being reasonable and generous in consultation with the auctioneers and others concerned in the disposal of lands, I feel a fund of goodwill and co-operation will be built up whereby, over a period of years, the pool of land required by the Minister will be obtained.

I wish the Minister and the Land Commission well in their efforts to cope with the problem but this Bill falls short of my expectations. Having heard the warnings of the Minister for some years, I was expecting better things. I hope that his attitude in relation to landowners may, as a result of this Bill, be changed. There is little use in the issue of warnings and threats to our landowners: the day is past when any Minister can do that and hope to achieve his objects. Instead of a warning and a threat, the hand of friendship should be extended. There should be a spirit of co-operation and goodwill between the landowners and the Government and that would produce better and more beneficial results.

I was anxiously awaiting the circulation of this Bill. From the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Lands and from the speeches of various Ministers throughout the country, I was expecting great things. I was expecting a revolutionary Land Bill. I was expecting a Bill that would contain many provisions in which this Bill is lacking. Maybe this measure is a first instalment of land legislation: I do not know. If it is a first instalment of Land Bills, would it not have been better for the Minister to wait until he and his Department could decide fully on a more positive course for obtaining land for the relief of our congestion problem?

This Bill contains one or two attractive provisions but it contains, also, a number of objectionable provisions. In other words, it reflects a Government trying to relieve the congestion problem but finding themselves handcuffed and blindfolded. That, really is the summing-up of this Bill. I was expecting that the matters and the points I raised in relation to Fine Gael land policy and, indeed, the points I raised tonight and earlier this evening would be incorporated in this Bill. However, we must deal with the measure on its merits.

There are many beneficial provisions lacking in the Bill. I trust that, by a full and thorough examination, this House may more actively interest itself in the workings of the Land Commission. I expect that this Bill will be debated well, fully, wisely and impartially by the House. Of all the legislation we can discuss, there can be none more important than a Bill which can be of such great benefit to our rural community. Therefore, the Bill is a measure that should engage the active attention, wise counsel, constructive proposals and suggestions of all Deputies.

May I conclude by saying that the Minister will be met from this side of the House not with unwarranted criticism but with goodwill, with concrete suggestions and with whatever advice we can give in an effort to mould our land policy to conform with what we feel will be most beneficial for our country and the relief of congestion? We are all genuinely sincere in our efforts to do something for those who are suffering from the great disability of congestion and for that reason, let the Minister be assured that when he comes here with reasonable proposals, he will be met not with any opposition but with practical suggestions.

If we make suggestions from this side of the House, we make them in the full knowledge that we are doing our duty as the Opposition and in an effort to direct the Government into what we feel is the proper way of thinking in the national interest. Every member of our Party is deeply concerned about conditions in rural Ireland as affected by the obligations and duties of the Land Commission and particularly by the workings of this Bill. I can assure the Minister that it is not our intention now or in the future to be in any way obstructive. Fine Gael never stood in the way of anything that was progressive for this country and for that reason the opposition we offer to this Bill will be constructive——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy has said that many times.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

I can assure him that any suggestions we make will be made in the interests of the people, both land owners and congests.

Mr. Dolan

Ba mhaith liom comhgháirdeachas a dhéanamh leis an Aire agus leis an Roinn Tailte as ucht an Bille seo a thabhairt ós comhair na Dála. Dar liomsa isé an Bille Talún so an Bille Talún is fearr dár tugadh isteach ó cuireadh an Stát ar bun. Bille an-fhada is ea é. Tá a lán altanna ann agus gach ceann acu an-thabhachtach. Tá súil agam go scrúdóidh na Teachtaí go léir na haltanna seo agus go mbeidh siad go léir toilteanach cabhrú linn fadhb dheacair na talún a réiteach.

I wish to congratulate the Minister and the Department on introducing this Bill. This is a long piece of legislation containing many sections, each and every one of which is very important. This is the most welcome step forward in legislation governing the work of the Land Commission for a long time. Indeed, I could describe it as the greatest piece of land legislation that has been introduced since the Dáil came into existence. It is aimed at solving the legacy of uneconomic holdings which we have been left in this country. The staggering figure of 60,000 such holdings is a problem for any Government. Even if we had the whole of our national territory and part of the surrounding as well, it is difficult to envisage the finding of sufficient land in order to solve this problem.

Therefore, this is a very bold and courageous step the Minister has taken. He is offering encouragement to the youth of this country in a very concrete way. He intends to provide for them the capital which will help them to purchase holdings and he is trying to create a viable farm on which a man could reasonably be expected to rear a family in comfort. At the same time, he is providing sympathetic consideration for the elderly people who have been engaged during their lives in the difficult work of farming.

There is no question of a big stick being used in this Bill so far as the owners of farms are concerned. There is provision made in every part of it for negotiation and for the utmost co-operation between the Land Commission and those who own land and those who expect to acquire land. If we had sufficient land this could be an easy problem but as things are, irrespective of what Government is in office, this is not an easy problem to solve. However, the Minister has taken some steps to remedy the situation as he has found it and to bring up the size of the viable farm to roughly 45 acres of good land or its equivalent of not so good land. We welcome also the intention to provide suitable houses for these people who acquire farms. Deputies saw the excellent model of a Land Commission house which was on exhibition in this House and it is something on which the Commission should be congratulated.

There are excellent farmers in Ireland. It is not an easy occupation to master and unless you have some training, unless you were reared on a farm, it is difficult to adapt yourself to that way of living. Many farmers' houses are isolated, situated in backward parts of the country and these people sacrifice many of the attractions and entertainments of the big cities and towns. This Government has extended the rural electrification scheme so as to provide the power which enables farmers to modernise their method of working and to keep in line with the progress that is necessary and that will be necessary when we enter the European Economic Community.

The Minister is aiming at helping people to have farms of a standard size so that farmers will be able to earn a living and also to compete on the export market. For that reason when the Minister looks around to find these lands it is only natural that he would devote his attention to farms which, in the opinion of those neighbouring them and indeed in the opinion of those who would travel past them on the county roads, are not properly utilised or worked to the best advantage. There are many such farms in the country which have been let or set over a period of years. Probably they changed hands each succeeding year with the result that those who acquired them neglected them or were not encouraged by virtue of the fact that they might not succeed in purchasing on the eleven months system the following year, and did not use the necessary fertilisers or drain the land. Therefore, from year to year it deteriorated and after a lapse of ten, 15 or 20 years in many cases it went back to heather and was of very little use to anybody.

It is a good thing that the Minister is interested in that situation and that he has asked his officers to compile a list of such holdings in each county. I am not saying he will go in straight away and acquire this land by force but at least people will come to understand that they had better dispose of it or return to it themselves and maintain it properly.

No country the size of Ireland with so many uneconomic holdings can afford so many derelict farms and we must take steps to ensure that they will be put into production as quickly as possible, and that those people in the neighbourhood with small farms and large families will get portion of these lands.

In schedule 2 of the Bill, the Minister has defined certain areas as congested areas and I would ask him to include in those areas certain parts of my constituency of County Cavan where many holdings are uneconomic. He has power in the Bill to do that and these areas should be included in it. Many of them have for years been known to be congested and the position in that regard has not improved.

I do not intend to delay the House to any great extent except to say that, to my mind and to the minds of many others who wish to see conditions improved, the Bill is a great step forward. The last speaker made reference on a few occasions to Fine Gael policy with regard to land and loans. The trouble I saw in his speech was that he was trying to blow hot and cold at the same time. He tried to tell us that we should prevent people from exercising free sale and in the next sentence said that we should take over land. I do not think that is a fair approach because the Minister has no intention of trying to bulldoze this Bill through to the detriment of those who are working their lands properly. This Bill was never intended to do that.

We can take his statement with regard to the £1,000 loans free of interest as Fine Gael propaganda. It is a well-known fact that you cannot get money off trees and indeed not many years ago the people opposite were not able to provide even small loans for houses. The National Loan the Deputy's Coalition Party tried to float for a miserable £9 million was not fully subscribed so that it is not as easy as the Deputy may think to provide £1,000 loans free of interest for the farmers.

Mr. Donegan

Deputy Dolan's statements are not all true.

Mr. Dolan

I have not said anything that was not true. What I said with regard to the loan being undersubscribed is true and it is also true to say that you cannot hand out money ad lib. unless you can get it from the taxpayer.

Mr. Donegan

Unless it is for a luxury hotel.

Mr. Dolan

I remember when it was impossible to get a housing grant and when one of the captions in the newspapers was that it was impossible to get loans.

Mr. Donegan

That is quite untrue.

Mr. Moran

It is true, and the country knows it.

Mr. Dolan

I do not want to enter into a discussion on this matter. I have given the quotation from the article in The Anglo-Celt in December, 1957, the heading of which is “Banks Refuse Loans”. It is true that they were unable to get money to pay the housing grants and grants from the Local Loans Fund. The Deputy should accept that.

Mr. Donegan

The Deputy does not accept it.

Mr. Dolan

If he does not accept it, I will refer him to Deputy O'Donnell who was Minister for Local Government at the time.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy should keep to the Land Bill. This is widely apart from it.

Mr. Dolan

I was merely mentioning the fact that the last speaker referred to these loans.

An Ceann Comhairle

If there was bad example, the Deputy should not follow it.

Mr. Dolan

You cannot give these loans unless you are able to get the money to pay them. I want to point out that the last speaker was trying to play hot and cold in his efforts to get both sides of the House with him. That may be the right of a politician but it is not a fair way to treat this House, which is full of politicians.

The last Deputy to speak also said a lot about the sale of land to foreigners. We should ask him if he is in favour of the three F's for which the farmers of this country fought. I will not deal with the contribution made by some of his colleagues about the bringing in of foreigners to buy land because that is a matter between themselves. We welcome this Bill as a genuine effort to cope with the problem which has been handed down to us for years. We wish the Minister every success with it and will give him every assistance in putting it into operation.

Mr. Jones

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.

Mr. S. Flanagan

It is obvious from the content of the last speaker's remarks that he has carefully examined this Bill. It is equally obvious that the previous Fine Gael speaker had not taken that trouble, or that, if he did, his mind had not been greatly affected thereby.

With regard to the flight from the land mentioned by Deputy Jones, I do not think that any Government in any country in which this problem exists —in Wales, Scotland, Brittany or elsewhere in the world—can do more than give the necessary opportunity, economic and social. This particular phenomenon has been in existence for some years and, when all is said and done, in a free country, each generation goes its own way and makes its own decision. With regard to the west of Ireland, and this is probably true of the whole of Ireland where land is concerned, women rather than men are to some extent responsible for the movement away from the land. It appears to be a social rather than an economic problem in that young girls nowadays seem to prefer the type of social life available in a large city to rural life, even when every possible convenience is available to them in the country. It is something I have never understood, but then I am getting past the stage of being able to think the way a 17 or 18 year old thinks. This is their right and all we can do as a Government is to try to provide the opportunity.

There are, as the Minister knows, two approaches being made to the problem this Bill seeks to solve. One is the approach enshrined in the Bill. The other is an approach, which has got a great deal of clerical support and the support of certain farmer organisations, which suggests that the creation of 40- to 50-acre holdings, with the consequent further depopulation that would entail, is not the desirable or correct way in which to tackle the problem of the rural slum.

The other approach suggests that more intense and more intelligent use of small holdings is the real answer to the economic problems of farmers in congested areas. If one is to judge from the figures available from county council and Government sources, there can be no doubt that farmers have not made sufficient use of ground limestone in particular and fertilisers in general in the creation of more productive land. I have been inquiring here and there throughout the west of Ireland and the general feeling of the farmers is that the Minister's approach is the right one. Their belief is that it is not possible nowadays to have or to achieve a sufficiently high standard of living on a holding of anything less than 30 acres of good land.

I do not believe the Minister is being parochial in this connection. There cannot be any doubt that he and I and all those who represent western constituencies are only too painfully aware, from personal contact, of these problems — hundreds and possibly thousands of them. We are bound to be affected by the experience we have in dealing with our own people. I do not think the problems are basically different in Galway from Mayo, certainly in the northern part of Galway, which is the poorer section, not the rich and lush pastures which Deputy Carty and others enjoy. I do not believe the problem is essentially different in Clare, Kerry and that part of Cork which suffers from the same or kindred problems. I do not think the charge can be fairly made that the Minister and those of us keenly in favour of this Bill are being parochial. I shall go further and say I would not support this Bill if it attempted to apply to the entire country. The powers now being taken by the Land Commission are powers that we, as a Legislature, would normally be very slow to give. The steps the Land Commission will be empowered to take as a result of the enactment of this Bill are powers we would not like a Government Department to have in relation to the country as a whole.

This Bill is designed to cure an acute problem in certain areas. It is designed to do what should have been attempted 30 years ago. Certainly, some of the minor provisions in it, such as those clearing up the sub-division situation, should have been brought in a very long time ago. In fact, what was happening was that the Land Commission were acquiring and dividing land on the one hand and the people were redeeming annuities, subdividing land and fragmenting it all over the country on the other hand. It was time, if the Land Commission, the Department of Lands and the Minister were to be serious about this problem, that some of these changes were put into effect.

There is one matter about which I have very strong feelings, that is, with regard to the legal procedure adopted in the Land Commission. I hope the Minister will take this opportunity of simplifying and rationalising a procedure which has been in operation since about 1924 and which is so ridiculous as to be almost unbelievable. The time has come when it should be quite good enough to post documents to the Land Commission solicitor. The time has come when it should not be necessary to read through a verbose and contradictory order to find out whether you should lodge documents by way of schedule with the keeper of records or lodge a single document with the examiner. The time has come when a long and sometimes contradictory memorandum about how an allocation schedule, as it is called, should be prepared should be replaced by the simple apportionment account procedure which solicitors have found perfectly easy to operate and foolproof in practice.

It is time there should be some realism about things like quasi-tithe rents. I do not know what a quasi-tithe rent is; and, to tell you the truth, I do not want to find out, because I do not believe it exists. If it does, I believe the cost of giving £3 a week to one old age pensioner under this provision would pay for all the money the State would lose if all the quasi-tithe rents in the whole of the west of Ireland were forgotten about. Solicitors in their ordinary course of business deal by way of requisition on title and reply by way of apportionment account and closing. There are only two people involved in this. If there is a mortgagee, then there will be a third. The only effective difference this will make is that you have what is known in the law as a three point instead of a two point closing. I know the Minister himself is a solicitor with long years of experience before he took up his present position. I know he will sympathise with what I have to say. I hope he will give effect to my wishes in this regard.

With regard to Land Commission practice in the past, there is one aspect which, while I have some sympathy for it, I must deplore the action. It is with regard to houses. It appears to me to be very wasteful from the national point of view that the Land Commission on acquiring land should subsequently leave a perfectly good dwelling house until such time as it is practically uninhabitable and in some cases, in fact, until it is uninhabitable. That seems to be most wasteful in a country where we provide, either by rates or taxes, something like £600 for the building of a new house. Now it is going to be more. For the reconstruction of a house we provide hundreds of pounds in either rates or taxes. It seems wasteful and unnecessary that these houses should, where it can be avoided, be let go to rack and ruin. I appreciate there are difficulties. Where a re-arrangement scheme is involved, it is not apparent to the Land Commission which particular individual will ultimately get the house. I urge that in the interests of commonsense houses should not be left vacant for an indefinite period in the future.

There are a few other minor matters I wish to mention. For instance, suppose the registered owner of a field outside a town applies for the permission of the Land Commission to sell a site. If it is apparent to the inspector that the sale of half a dozen sites in that field would not be open to any objection, then it should be possible to devise machinery whereby the consent, after the first consent, would come automatically.

I hope that when this Bill is being implemented, the Land Commission will not be open to the charge now so often levelled against it of retaining land too long. Land has been held for ten, 20, 30, 37 years, to my knowledge. I do not know any circumstances under which land should be kept in a state of suspended animation for a period of 25 years. While that is going on, the very evil this Bill is designed to cure, the evil of continual letting, is being perpetrated by the Land Commission itself and by the time the allottees, as they are called, ultimately get their pieces of land, they are waste and useless.

In making this criticism, I am not in any way trying to take away from the approval I give to this Bill. The plain fact is that under the present system when land becomes available in an area, one of two things happens. One thing is certain to happen, that is, that local congests will try to have the land acquired. They will go to the Land Commission; they will go to a public representative; and the usual representations are then made.

There are circumstances in which it is obvious that if there were fair play, these people would have the land distributed amongst them but under the existing system, by the time the Land Commission have got round to taking positive action, the land has been quietly sold elsewhere and, as the Minister so very well knows, it causes something more than disappointment and chagrin; it causes annoyance and a sense of injustice amongst these people that the Land Commission should not be able to step in and prevent an outsider from coming in and, as a result, the state of congestion in the area is perpetrated.

Revolutionary, therefore, though it is, the proposal to serve notice effective for 12 months immediately land comes on the market, is the best one that is in this Bill. From now on let us hope that the big grievance of people who see land, sometimes the only piece of land that is likely to be available in the locality for perhaps ten or 15 years, being taken away from them, will no longer have any cause.

The Minister knows from his own experience that some of the rearrangement done at great expense in the constituency of South Mayo has not yielded the results that were expected. It is very sad to see the State spending a large amount of money on a comprehensive and very difficult rearrangement scheme and within one year of its completion, to find two or three new houses, each of which cost approximately £2,000, vacant and the land unused. I have often wondered if it would be possible to go even further than we are going in this Bill, and I am as fond of freedom and individual right as is anybody else, but when one sees a large amount of money spent on the reclamation of land, money that the public have to provide through taxation, and the same land allowed to go back again into rushes, one begins to feel appalled. When one sees the Land Commission spending an awful lot of money on the creation of viable holdings and the building of new and attractive houses and outbuildings and when these are left almost immediately afterwards, to go to rack and ruin, one is appalled. I often wonder, therefore, if the Land Commission could not take steps to reacquire forthwith land and houses, vested or otherwise, so as to prevent them from falling into disuse; in other words, to prevent the stupid waste of public funds.

There are many other aspects of this Bill on which I should like to make comment but there is a great deal in it which is more suitable for discussion on Committee Stage. I do want to congratulate the Minister sincerely on this measure and to express the hope that it will have the desired effect, to express the hope that the time will come when the Land Commission, which was originally established to cure a problem and then fade out, will have cured it and will be able to bid adieu.

I believe that in many ways we cannot answer some of the questions that could be put forward because this Bill is not final. Even when it is enacted, it will not be final, but at least it is an important step forward on the road to the solution of a very grave social and economic problem and it is a Bill which will give renewed hope to the people, particularly of the western areas, not least the constituency which the Minister and I represent, where some of the worst examples of congestion are still to be seen.

It is hardly necessary to say that I approve of the provision to pension off, generously pension off, elderly people who are anxious to retire from farming; that I approve of the provision which will enable young men to go out into the open market and fend for themselves. Many of the younger people are slowly beginning to realise that the State cannot do everything for them, cannot take them up in the morning, dress them, shave them, feed them during the day, give them land, a high price for everything and a comfortable bed at night; that they must be up and moving. I hope and believe that many of the young men will find it possible and profitable to avail of the money which will be forthcoming to enable them to go out and tackle the market alone.

I am glad to know that the principal Opposition Party is willing to give this Bill a Second Reading without asking for a division and, indeed, that they welcome it. The fact that they do so gives the lie to the suggestion one heard from time to time in recent months that this Bill was going to meet with very strong opposition in this House. I think it is not; I hope it is not. I look forward to improving the Bill on one or two small points at a later stage.

Mr. Leneghan

Tonight I listened for a long time to Deputy Flanagan, the ghost Minister for Lands in a ghost Government making a ghostly speech. It is rather amazing that when he had a chance of doing something, not only for the farmers of the west of Ireland but for the farmers in general, he forgot to do anything for them. The only thing missing from his speech here tonight was the banshee wail.

I wish to congratulate the Minister on introducing the Bill, despite the fact that I realise he is probably 40 years too late in doing it. He has had the courage to do what nobody else before him has attempted. We have often heard the American slogan: "Go west, young man, go west". In my country the slogan is: "Go east, young man, go east" and the faster our young men of the west can find a place in the east midlands and the midlands themselves, the better for all of us. I am glad that at last something is to be done to allow our people back to the lands from which they were chased centuries ago. We hear a lot of ballyhoo about the people of the midlands but we forget that our Irish people were driven out to the coastline and that most of the people who are in the midlands today are the descendants of English soldiers and their ilk who took over our land. It does not matter what titles they have. The fact is that many of these people took over our lands in days gone by and against the will of the majority of the people, they have hung on to them ever since.

It is a ridiculous situation that we find the densest population in the poor lands of the west, in the poor lands along the coastline, while in the centre of the country, there is a small population on the best land in the world. The imbalance of population in this country is so crazy that unless something is done about it in the near future, there will be no hope at all for agriculture. I travel 200 miles across the country and I find that I leave the most densely populated area in the country when I leave County Mayo and that when I come into the midlands, I come into the least densely populated area.

Many of these people have three or four holdings of land. They refuse to sell them or to make any proper use of them. At the same time, in the western seaboard counties, we have people who would be only too delighted to take them over and make use of them. Unfortunately, one of these brilliant coalition Governments got into power under false pretences and through false promises and made it possible for any man to get rid of his holding at a jumped-up price. We all know that as a result of a Bill passed by an inter-Party Government, anybody can now put his land in the hands of an auctioneer and get two or three people in to bid at the auction. These people have not the slightest intention of buying the land but if the Land Commission want it, they will have to pay the highest price. That kind of nonsense has been going on now for a number of years and it is time to call a halt to it.

I know of instances in which land was put up for sale and people brought in to make fake bids for it and the Land Commission had to pay tremendous prices as a result. There are many people in this House who are aware that a holding was recently sold to an alleged Egyptian for £40,000 and that the Land Commission now have to take over that holding and try to let it at an economic rent to the local people. It is beyond the time when somebody should call a halt to this practice and I hope the present Minister will do so.

In my area, when Deputy Blowick was Minister for Lands, a holding was taken over and the owner was paid £70 in Land Bonds for it. He has not yet obtained any money for it. The Land Commission people went into court and put up a plea that they wanted this land for the relief of congestion, but what did they do? They handed over this holding to a man who already had a holding of 104 acres, who is living on his own and who is 69 years of age. Not only did that man have land but he had pull as well. I hope things of that kind are coming to an end. It is past time that they were brought to an end.

It has often been alleged that if you were a tradesman and wanted a job from the Land Commission, you should not go looking for it with a hammer sticking out of your pocket, but that you should go to the inspector's wife with the head of a turkey sticking out from under your coat.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I do not think the Deputy should criticise officials in that way. The Deputy is criticising people who have no opportunity of replying to him.

Mr. Leneghan

However it is the same down in my part of the country.

Mr. Corish

It was not the official; it was the official's wife.

Mr. Leneghan

There has been very grave discontent in regard to the Land Commission not only in my part of the country but in many other places as well. I am sorry the Minister is not here because if what I say is wrong all the Minister has to do is to stand up and say so. I do not think this discontent is the Minister's fault because he is the only Minister who ever did anything for us. There should be no kidgloves in a debate of this kind. I do not mind anyone throwing stones at me because I will throw as many back. The big problem in these country areas is the imbalance of agricultural population. In the midlands there are the ranchers and the moneyed men. If one has money one can get land and the amazing increase in the value of land and in the price obtained for land to-day is the best indication of how much money is being made out of land by those people who have enough of it. However, if a man has not got land and has not the money to buy it he is in a serious position. For that reason I welcome this Bill but I sincerely hope it is not one of those sops thrown out to the people of the west. For too long have sops been thrown out to us. I hope this Bill, when it is enacted, will be implemented and that our people in the west will be brought east as rapidly as possible. I do not mind if in doing that a priest loses his collection, a doctor loses his fees, a teacher loses his class or a shopkeeper loses his customers. I am not apologising to them. I am just speaking for the farmers.

I have seen meetings held in the west, allegedly farmers' meetings, at which there was no farmer at all, and these meetings have been held purely and simply to try to prevent people leaving the area. I hope the Minister for Lands will not be the slightest intimidated by the people who attend these meetings because they are interested in their own welfare, and not in that of the farmers.

It is remarkable that it is almost unknown that any man who has ever been taken to a holding in the midlands has failed. If there ever had been a failure it would be so rare that it should be forgotten. That is the best proof of the ability of our people to make a living in what is euphemistically described as a viable holding. I wonder when we are using the word "viable" would it be more correct to say that the main thing is a viable holder rather than a viable holding. Over the last thirty years the many people who came from County Mayo and from many parts of Donegal and Kerry to the midlands, who got no more than thirty-five acres and often less, have made good. It is no use giving land to a man unless he is able to work it.

Due to a Bill which went through this House during the war years the people of Limerick got a lot of land. They burned the stairs in the house, burned the rafters in the roof, if they could, and then cleared off to England. A Bill was passed to stop them from getting land. However, it is well past the time that this should be forgotten. People have changed very much since then. The people of Limerick today and the people of other parts of the country, no matter where they come from if they show a reasonable interest in the land should at least be given a five-year period in which to justify themselves. In the small rural towns of the west and in the midlands if a young chap takes conacre or has in any way shown that he is interested in the development of land he should be regarded as a good client for a holding of land in the same way as somebody in a congested area who is pulled out to make room for his neighbour. He should be placed in a position in which he cannot sell the land but if he wants to sell it to buy a better place well and good. If he just wants to sell it to get the money that should not be tolerated under any circumstances.

I have often quarrelled with the Land Commission in regard to their method of selecting tenants. There are many people in the west with only four or five acres of land who have been taken into the midlands to operate substantial holdings. The majority of them made good but, on the other hand, there was a great risk involved. I know all the difficulties that are presented by the problem of vesting. As the law stands, in the case of a man whose holding is vested, it is practically impossible to change him as far as the Land Commission is concerned.

For instance, people such as the ESB do not walk out to a man's house and run a supply into it and hope he will pay for it. They canvass him first. They ask him if he will take the supply and they tell him the price. It is very important that the Land Commission should do something similar to that.

Take farmers in the west who are doing reasonably well. In many cases they will agree to a change. It is obvious that, having done well in the west, they will do better in the midlands or in the east. Then the Land Commission could ask the smaller people in the west if they would use the holdings vacated by the people who have moved out. It is a much safer and a much better course than that pursued at the moment.

Take a man living in the west, almost on sand. You will frighten the life out of him if you say to him that you will take him out of that land and transfer him, but that is what has been done. Such a man never saw land before except in a photograph, perhaps. I suppose it is the best commentary on the ability of our people that those who have been taken away have been so successful but I do not think it is the right method of dealing with this matter. There must be an easier solution.

There are many people, even though they are in a minority, whose land is freehold. They make no payments to the Land Commission. Unless these people have land in some place where it is causing a tremendous hold-up from the point of view of Land Commission activities, they just cannot get anywhere at all. That is unfair. If such a landholder pays nothing to the Land Commission, at least he has caused them no trouble. I do not see why he should reap no benefit from the Land Commission.

I am sure it is not necessary to tell the Minister that I wholeheartedly agree with the introduction of this Bill. Unfortunately, it is 40 years too late, but better late than never. I am sure the Minister realises that until our agricultural population is reasonably distributed over our lands, there is little hope for agriculture here. The great imbalance of our rural population is the cause of our agricultural trouble. The Minister for Lands is the only man who can remedy that situation. It may take time but until somebody starts—as the Minister is doing now—there is no hope of achieving the objectives which we in the west would like to see achieved. It is not that we cast avaricious eyes on the lands of the people in the midlands but when we see the poor use to which the best land in the world is put, we feel that we in the west are not being treated fairly. Having been kept out of these lands for hundreds of years, it is time we got a chance of getting back to show what can be done.

I do not know of anybody from my county who failed when he was transferred. In all, there must be very few such cases. Anything the Minister can do to send the small farmers in the west to better lands in other parts of the country is worth doing: there is nothing political about it. There is no hope for agriculture in this country unless we put the agricultural population where it should be. There is no use, from the agricultural point of view, in having a small farmer eking out a livelihood along the west coast while a rancher in the midlands marches and says he is starving. If he is starving, it is his own fault. Any west of Ireland man who got 40 or 50 acres in the midlands would consider himself well off and would not be looking for anything from this or any Government.

Mr. Reynolds

This Land Bill seems to me to be a very helpful measure, containing as it does 45 sections, which, I must say, were very well explained by the Minister in his introductory statement. However, we must ask ourseslves what good can the Bill do for a constituency like mine, where two counties are involved, Leitrim and Roscommon. In that constituency, if we look at the ratio of population to land acreage, we will find it very worrying indeed.

In County Leitrim, there are 509 holdings under £2 valuation. There are 980 holdings between £2 and £4; 1,931 between £4 and £7; 1,986 between £7 and £10; 2,210 between £10 and £15; 1,094 between £15 and £20; and there are 1,439 holdings over £20. There are 10,149 holdings in that county and of these, 8,710 are completely uneconomic. Roscommon is supposed to be a much better off county. There we have 505 holdings under £2 valuation; 1,258 holdings between £2 and £4; 2,066 between £4 and £7; 1,996 between £7 and £10; 2,907 between £10 and £15; 2,165 between £15 and £20; and 4,589 holdings with valuations of over £20. There are 15,486 holdings in that county and of these 10,897 are uneconomic.

The point I wish to make is that no later than Thursday last, the Minister, answering a question here, told us that in County Westmeath, there are 4,418 acres of land awaiting division, some of which has been held by the Land Commission since 15th November, 1960; that in County Meath there are 7,843 acres awaiting division, some of which has been in the hands of the Land Commission since 17th April, 1957; and that in county Kildare, the Land Commission hold 2,758 acres, some of it since November 5th, 1956.

We must ask ourselves honestly what will the new Bill do to remedy a situation like that. While so many of my constituents are living on small uneconomic holdings, hungry for migration, the Land Commission hold in three counties alone more than 15,000 acres of good land which would give 50 acres to each of 320 people. As I said at the outset, I cannot for the life of me see how the new Bill will do anything to remedy that position.

We do not really know whose fault this is—whether it is the fault of the Minister, of some of his officials or of somebody else. If it is the fault of the Departmental officials, I would appeal most earnestly to the Minister to get on to them and get something done about this impasse, because it is no use expecting this new measure to do good generally if such elementary errors are being tolerated.

The Bill in many ways falls short of my expectations. I had hoped it would have some reference to the purchase of land here by foreigners, particularly since I represent a constituency which, as I have said, contains so many small farmers hungry for migration and who every week read of the fancy prices being paid for good land by foreigners. They feel, and rightly so, that it is the job of the Land Commission to buy up that land.

Some weeks ago, the Minister for Local Government announced a new scheme under which there are to be increased grants for buildings for farmers whose valuations do not exceed £25. He also stated that the Land Commission would provide these people with loans of up to £500. I had expected to hear in the Minister's speech today some reference to these matters. Unfortunately I did not hear it. On page 5 of his introductory statement, the Minister says:

At this point I must emphasise that the adoption of an area of 40-45 acres for the family farm does not carry with it any implication of deliberately reducing the number of persons on the land.

He may be right in that statement if he proceeds immediately to divide this land he has in the three midland counties I mentioned, but if the people of my constituency migrate, surely it will reduce the number of small farmers tremendously if we are to have, in my constituency, farms with 40 to 45 acres of good land. I quite agree there is nothing wrong with reducing the number of farmers in the constituency of North Roscommon-South Leitrim because in fact we cannot hope to give the people there holdings of 40 to 45 acres of good land and still have the same number there.

On page 6 of his statement, the Minister said:

The Small Farms Report also suggested a system of loans to enable a progressive farmer in a congested area to migrate himself to a better holding of his choice rather than have him wait, as at present, until such time as the Land Commission might come round to dealing with his townland.

I could not agree more with him, because as some Deputy said here, some people have been waiting for 25 years. I feel sure there are many people in Leitrim who have been waiting even longer. I must, therefore, congratulate the Minister on what I think is a great idea. I would ask the Minister to tell us what the qualifications are in the case of farmers applying for this loan. There is nothing further I wish to say at this stage except to express the hope that when this Bill is passed, it will not be left lying in the Land Commission offices without anything being done.

Mr. Carty

Any Bill aimed at relieving congestion where it is most acute, that is in the west of Ireland, should be and must be welcomed by this House. However, I have one criticism to make in regard to what happened before the Bill was introduced. I believe the Minister was unwise to announce as far back as a year ago that he proposed to introduce this Bill and to mention some of the rather revolutionary proposals he had in mind. In the year that has elapsed since the Minister gave advance notice of his intention to introduce this Bill, many holdings have changed hands, but, unfortunately, the movement of land was in a direction other than that intended by the Minister.

People who had been letting their lands for years and others who wanted for some reason to get rid of their holdings took fright and a large pool of land came on the market, with the result that farmers of substantial means who were financially sound or in a position to get money, went into the market and bought farms, thereby denying the Land Commission the opportunity of eventually purchasing these lands and making them available to smallholders. The rich farmer became richer, or at least enlarged his holding, while the smallholders or congests saw the lands disappearing that they had expected the Land Commission to acquire and divide among them. Therefore, I believe the Minister was unwise in giving any details of this Bill so far in advance of its introduction. "If 'twere done when 'tis done, then 'twere well' twere done quickly."

It is time that the Land Commission, or the Minister by legislation, put a ceiling on the acreage of land that any one man should hold. We have too much land held by individuals or families—thousands of acres. Until such time as a ceiling is put on ownership, and the amount of land specified that any one person or family may hold, we are only fooling ourselves and the people because we will never get to grips properly with the problem. I do not know what the ceiling should be or how the Minister could give legal effect to it, but it must be done.

In one part of my constituency, on the eastern side, around Clonfert and Eyrecourt, literally thousands of acres are being held by families and all the efforts made by the Land Commission to secure these lands have failed. I also know that when attempts are made to acquire these holdings, it is represented that many people are employed on particular farms. I understand the Land Commission evaluate the problem in this way: The farm with 500 acres employs 10 people. On that basis, the 500 acres are divided by ten giving 50 acres each to the employee for the purpose of determining whether an adequate and fair number is employed on that land in relation to possible acquisition. People are quite aware of this and will state that they have a certain number employed on the lands. The officials representing the Land Commission are not in a position or apparently do not take steps to refute these statements when all they need do is apply to the Department of Social Welfare to find out how many insured workers were on a particular holding. They did not do that and their eyes were wiped. Unless they are very careful in future in regard to possible acquisition of that kind their eyes will be wiped again. I do not know if I am at liberty to offer some criticism of the Land Courts as at present constituted——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I do not think that will arise on this Bill.

Mr. Carty

Perhaps not but if a trend that has asserted itself recently in relation to proceedings for acquisition continues, it is only a waste of time for the Land Commission to proceed for acquisition. At a recent court in Galway, of which I am aware, the Commission sought to obtain some 300 acres. After a long day's hearing at which witnesses of all types were summoned the Commission succeeded in getting eight acres of land. Defence witnesses were brought from England and from far away to state that if the land was left to them and if the Land Commission did not move in they would return and work, everybody knowing they had no such intention. That seriously hampers the powers of the Land Commission to acquire. The gentlemen in the Land Courts must be the most gullible in the country.

The Minister proposes in this Bill to take drastic action against the people who have been letting their lands for years. That is long overdue. I know of holdings that have been let for upwards of 60 years. In one case which I reported four years ago a holding had been let for 49 years consecutively. To date the Land Commission have taken no action and so far as I can see no action will be taken. It is a serious thing when you report a particular substantial holding and no action is taken by the Commission in an area where acute congestion exists. I am highly critical of the policy of the Commission in not going in when they were given notice by a public representative or by a group of farmers. I am highly critical of the procedure, the publication of statutory notice in Iris Oifigiúil and all this paraphernalia. It gives owners of these lettings an opportunity to dispose of their property or arrange for its disposal before the Land Commission can take the necessary initial proceedings for acquisition.

Debate adjourned.

The Dáil adjourned at 10.30 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Thursday, 28th November, 1963.