(South Tipperary): I was endeavouring to secure from the Minister in his reply some indication as to the policy as regards land resettlement as between the very small holders and what I might call the marginal economic holders. I was pointing out that if you take holders from five acres up—ten, 15, 20, 25, 30 and 35 acres—you will have broadly diminishing numbers of holders as you proceed from the lower to the higher acreage. In the lower acreage group, you have a large number of holders and if they were to be accommodated as regards land settlement, they would individually and collectively demand a larger amount of land than those in the higher group and, therefore, I think you would secure the greatest immediate good for the greatest number by dealing in the first instance with the marginal economic holders, those of 30 and 35 acres.
Is that, generally, the policy the Minister is inclined to follow? At the same time, I should like him, if his objective is 40 and 45-acre holdings of good land, to let it be known so that the public and particularly smallholders will realise the position—that their chances of getting land in the immediate future are less and that they stand far down on the priority list as regards being accommodated through land resettlement.
I have already mentioned that in fact cottage-holders although they have been deceived in this for years are virtually excluded from securing land in land division nowadays. Again, there are exceptional cases such as where a man in a cottage, for instance, loses his livelihood, where he has worked as a steward or chief land owner on a farm, and has to be considered. He should be considered. Or a man who for years has taken conacre or grass and shown himself competently interested in farming would come to be favourably considered. I know a man who has made an international reputation for himself in bloodstock, although he has no land. That is an exceptional case but surely he is entitled to consideration. These are the exceptions but in practice—it is not easy for the ordinary Deputy to get a figure—we find the average cottageholder is not eligible for land resettlement and the sooner they are told that, the better for the country. It is good public relations to tell them so, even though in the immediate viewpoint it may seem bad politics.
I should like the Minister to say if, as regards taking over land, any distinction is made in regard to the functional use to which the land is being put. I recognise the cases where land is not being worked, the absentee owner, land being sub-let, and that these constitute reasons for moving in on land but is a distinction made between, say, cattle, production of milk and tillage? Is there a general principle that where land is being considered for taking over, the tillage farm has an edge on the dairy farm which in turn has an edge on the man who is just running dry stock? As a general principle, that can be carried too far because certain areas lend themselves to dairying and to tillage, while certain other areas, and perhaps, the particular circumstances of a holding, lend themselves to dry stock. If you say the only man who should have a holding of land is the man who is ploughing every acre. I think you will be unfair in certain cases.
The Minister mentioned that temporary lettings would still be allowed. I wish to know for what period will a single farmer or a widow be allowed let land. I understand that at the moment the letting of land is allowed up to five years and after five years the Land Commission become interested. Is there a limit in regard to the temporary letting of land in regard, say, to a farmer who is ill or a widow who might not re-marry? Will they be entitled to let their land? Is there a limited period or is each case judged on its merits?
I expressed my disappointment that my own county or constituency did not appear in the Second Schedule of the Bill which mentions Donegal, Galway, Kerry, Leitrim, Mayo, Roscommon, Sligo, portion of west Cork and portion of Clare. I am disappointed because parts of my county contain a large number of congests. I know that the Minister may include these areas by order and add them to the Second Schedule but I would have preferred if he had introduced the Bill with them in it and not have drawn a line through the country. I fail to see why the Minister should have placed such emphasis on the part of the country from which he comes.
I welcome the part of the Bill which introduces farm pensions in the form of cash, annuity, or part cash and part annuity. It is an excellent provision for old people to encourage them to give up their land. It is at least better than sending them to the poor house. The annuity is to be based on life expectancy and I assume that the Commissioners could give a more generous annuity to a very old man who they expect will live for only a couple of years, but what is the position of a person in, say, the 40's who has a small parcel of land? What kind of annuity can they provide for such a person? I have in mind the case of an unmarried lady with a small business, the profit from which is negligible, and who has a small parcel of land which she has let for a number of years, land which she has inherited. The land is her sole source of livelihood. What will her position be? She is about 40 years of age and is incapable of working the land. She lives in a town four or five miles away from where the land is. How will the Commissioners arrive at a worthwhile annuity for this lady who has a life expectancy of, say, 35 years? I should like the Minister to tell us how he has worked out his approach to this type of problem.
I also welcome the Minister's farm purchase loan scheme for what he terms the migration scheme for selfmigrants. That is a very good section and one which is to be commended. Section 13 states that land cannot be let, sublet, sold or transferred for a period of 12 months after an order has been made by the Land Commission. In other words, there is a freezing of the land for 12 months. Although that has been praised by most people I regard it as being a little bit extreme. Surely if the Land Commission have done their preliminary work properly it should not be necessary for them to freeze the operations on a farm for a period of 12 months. Surely if they said that they would stop the sale, letting, subletting or transfer of a farm for the next three months it would suffice. I suggest the period could be shortened and that a few months should be sufficient time for the Land Commission to make up their mind.
I should like to get some information about another aspect of the Bill. I understand that the pre-1933 Land Act redeemed holdings which were fee simple holdings and which are now no longer free to be sub-divided without permission from the Land Commission. I understand there are few of these cases in the west of Ireland but I should like to know if there are many cases in the rest of the country. If one considers the property of a man who has bought his land from the Commission is it not an infringement of property rights that, having paid his full commitments and fulfilled his obligations as far as the Commission are concerned, he should now have to approach the Commission in regard to the future of the land? I can see the Minister's point of view. Unless there are many of these holdings, unless there are a large number of holdings which are liable to be sub-divided and increase the land slum problem, I would think it is an infringement of property rights and questionable. Unless that danger exists in tangible form, the provision, to my mind, would be questionable.
I was very surprised at some of the statements made regarding the length of time some holdings have been in the hands of the Land Commission. Some Deputy mentioned a farm which was in their hands for 48 years and another mentioned 60 years. In my constituency it is true that a number of holdings have been held for what seems to be an unduly long period. I can never get an explanation of what reason there may be for that but when one hears of periods of 48 years and 60 years one is nonplussed as to how that situation could have arisen. I think it was Deputy Seán Flanagan, who appears to have considerable experience of the Land Commission, as he would have as a solicitor, who mentioned periods of ten, 20 and 37 years of retention by the Land Commission. These extraordinary figures are quite incomprehensible to me. When the Minister is so anxious to expedite the division of land it seems extraordinary that Deputies from his own side of the House can give figures like that.
Somebody mentioned the question of commonages and said that they should be given over to some landowner. I agree with that. In my constituency, at Ballymore, after the division of an estate, we were left with about 40 acres. There were 23 cottage-holders agitating for some of that land. In the event, none of them got any of it and, possibly, from the very beginning they were not eligible under Land Commission policy. They had been promised land down through the years, particularly before an election, but then it was decided to make it into a cowpark. There the matter rests at the moment. Only one or two farmers are using it.
There are 40 acres of land there and it is bound to deteriorate. It was handed over to the county council. I was against that but the council, by a small majority, decided to act as caretakers of this 40 acres. Only one man shows any interest in it. It is deteriorating and, unless something is done about it, it will become useless. I do not think you can give land out like that unless you give ownership with it. The man who uses it cannot take the same interest in it as an owner and give it the manure and attention which it needs. Whether you call it a cowpark or a commonage, the giving out of land like that is completely unjustified. It would be better to give it to one man who would use it instead of trying to dodge the anger of people who were wrongfully promised land.
