Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 4 Dec 1963

Vol. 206 No. 5

Land Bill, 1963—Second Stage (Resumed).

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

Mr. Gilhawley

Last night I was dealing with the question of why Sligo is not regarded as a congested area as far as migration is concerned. That has become clear to me as a result of question and answer over the past year or so. I would ask the Minister to state if he is prepared to regard Sligo as a congested area for the purpose of migration.

As I said last night, I welcome this Bill. I sympathise with any Minister who has the courage to tackle such a gigantic problem. In my opinion, there is not sufficient land to distribute amongst the land-hungry people. Some 15,000 acres are held by the Land Commission in the midlands. Those broad acres would help to resettle 200 or 300 families.

The Minister knows as well as I do that the west is dying, even though it may be a slow process. There is very grave concern among the people in the west about the future. This requires a forthright and courageous policy by the Government, because this is a Government responsibility. That policy must be put into operation before it is too late to save the west. As I said before, I can foresee the day when the west will become a shooting ground and fishing place for foreigners. Depopulation is going on at an alarming rate. I welcome the Bill, therefore, as an effort to do something concrete for the west. No matter what Deputies from other parts of the country may say and no matter from what side of the House they say it, it must be remembered that our problem in the west goes back to the 1st May, 1654, when Cromwell issued his famous edict telling the non-settlers in the remaining parts of the country to go to hell or to Connaught. The evil that besets us in respect of small farms stems from that. I do not intend to go into the history of that, because I think the position is well known.

If the depopulation of the west is to continue at the same rate, it will be disastrous. Nothing can compensate for the loss of human flesh and blood. Animals, grassland or large farms will not compensate for it. In my opinion, there are only two solutions to the problem. If we carry out migration from the west—and I agree some must take place—we are, nevertheless, reducing our population.

There is another point. The small farmer can and might make a living on a small farm if there were proper encouragement, proper advice and, as was mentioned last night by a Deputy on the other side of the House, pocket industries in, say, towns of up to 1,000 population. That is the only solution that I can see to the problem of the small farmer.

I do believe the Minister is doing his best, that his intentions are good in this Bill. There may be a few amendments required which he may meet. As a Deputy from the west, I welcome any Bill designed to help to relieve the distress of the people there.

In the course of the debate yesterday, reference was made to the battering ram and all the rest. One thing that I mentioned in that connection was the great clearances, when the battering ram was used to batter down small holdings in the west of Ireland in order to make an estate for a landlord. We have read about these things and they have left an impression on our minds. The people outside the west who think that this Bill is designed for the west should look up the history of the famine days and read about the number of people who were buried without coffins, even in the Minister's native county, in Swinford, in the workhouse there, and all over the west. To anybody who would criticise the Minister on the ground that he has brought in this Bill for the west only I say it is time that something was done for the west.

The question of the pool of land available inevitably brings me to the question of the purchase of land by foreigners. Personally, I am not against foreigners entering this country. I welcome them. A new infusion is probably due. I welcome them in their own sphere, that of industrial development. The Minister should introduce legislation to preserve the land of Ireland for the "mere Irish" who are willing to work it and who do not wish to leave the country if they can get security in a reasonably good farm. It would appear, at least to the ordinary individual, that the Government condone the buying of land by foreigners. I should not like to subscribe to that idea, but it certainly looks that way.

The suggestion that the Land Commission hold on to lands which they have acquired is a matter about which I have an open mind. It depends entirely on whether the holdings are small or big. In Sligo they have taken two holdings beside mine and I agree 100 per cent—I could not agree more —that the Land Commission are absolutely right. They have two holdings. The amount of land is so small that it will settle nothing. They are hoping that another one or two holdings will come on the market and that they will be able to settle something. From that point of view, I quite agree with the Irish Land Commission in holding on to land, if that is their object.

In so far as large holdings are concerned, it has been suggested that they are holding on and making money out of them. I know nothing about that. I do know that the officials of the Land Commission in Sligo are very co-operative and I can see their point at all times. Certainly, I have no crib whatsoever. I get any information I look for. I am satisfied with the information when the matter in question is explained to me. I consider that they are operating in the proper manner.

It has been asked if the Minister is serious—personally I have no doubt that he is serious—in hastening the relief of congestion in the west and in setting a target of a 40-45 acre farm. Personally, I do not think that will be achieved for the next 20 years. It will be a gradual development. If more work is to be done than has previously been done, there must be extra staffing, at least in local offices in the country. That is logical. I have been going into the offices of the Irish Land Commission in Sligo every Saturday for the past two or three years. It is the same staff that is there. They have not complained—I want to make that very clear—but extra work cannot be done unless extra staffing and extra money are provided.

There appears to be a doubt as to whether extra money has been provided for the acquisition of land. It has been stated that an extra £5 million is being put into the Land Bonds over the next five years and then it appears that already there was £1 million being spent. Perhaps the Minister will clarify that matter in concluding the debate. I do want to emphasise the need for extra staff. It is very difficult to get extra work done if you have not got extra staff.

There appears to be quite an amount of confusion in respect of the recent statement by the Minister in regard to loans from the Irish Land Commission for the erection of houses. I would ask the Minister to clarify the position as soon as possible, especially in respect of two points—the period——

An Ceann Comhairle

This is a new Land Bill. This is not an examination of administration of the Land Commission. The Deputy should reserve that for an Estimate. This is a Land Bill for the disposal of land in a certain fashion. The administration of the Land Commission is not for discussion at the moment.

Mr. Gilhawley

I am merely doing what has already been done on the Second Stage of this Bill.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy should not add to it.

Mr. Gilhawley

I would ask the Minister just to clarify the matter about loan charges and the period of time and the interest charges. I would suggest that he should take £100 over a period and indicate what the repayment would be over that period. That would satisfy everybody and would be a simple means of illustration. Would the Minister also tell us when replying whether a borrower can redeem his loan at a time to suit himself or must the loan run its full period?

The only criticism I have to offer on this Bill is that the Minister said too much too soon about it. In my county there was a bit of panic buying and selling and there was not much opportunity given to enter into the open market and find what the real value of the land was. This will involve some difficulty afterwards for the Land Commission officers who are trying to acquire land.

It is doubtful whether the small farmers in the west of Ireland will benefit to the extent to which they think they will benefit, that is, that everybody will be pushed up to 40 or 45 acres of land overnight and that economic salvation is around the corner. I do not think that is correct and we should not encourage that point of view. Not far from the Mayo border, I know a parish called Rathlee where the average size of holdings is eight statute acres. There is intensive farming in the area and those eight statute acres are tilled from fence to fence and grazing land got for the cows. Nothing can be done in that place. There is no land on offer. There is one farm there which would settle very little, and nothing can happen in that place unless there is migration.

I might mention the Lissadell estate. I understand the proceedings in that respect are sub judice and consequently I will not force the Minister to reply on it. However, here are thousands of acres in the heart of the country and, having due regard to what the family concerned have done for Ireland and all the rest of it, I still think it is a matter of expediency and, perhaps, charity that that estate should be taken over as soon as possible. As every Deputy who knows the position will confirm, we saw acres and acres of meadow going to loss last summer and acres and acres of oats rotting in the ground all because the management had not the permission of the court to get sufficient labour.

I hope the Minister will make this Bill workable. My earnest wish is that it will help to solve the problems of small farmers but I would not like to hold out any hope that it will do so for many years to come. Although I know it is not the Minister's function, an ancillary activity would be pocket industries in the villages.

Another matter which has been mentioned on this Bill is the question of commonages. There are quite a few of them around my place, what they call "co" farms and they are creating a headache from this point of view. I have one in mind where a trustee was appointed to collect the rent: that would be probably 30 or 40 years ago and he has been dead for the past 20 years. Nobody now pays rent until such time as he gets a six-day notice. The original receivable order appears to have been lost and nobody knows where he stands. The Land Commission should intervene in the matter and maybe the Minister could deal with it under this Bill.

I would ask the Minister, in dealing with the congested areas and with the acquisition of land, not to insist, where there is acute congestion, on paying by land bonds. Some of those people like to get cash. Some of them would be satisfied with half payment in cash and half in bonds. Actually, I think the Land Commission are not too rigid but if they were even more elastic, land might become more readily available. I do believe the Minister in introducing this Bill has brought forward a good proposal to deal with the congested areas, particularly in the west of Ireland.

I have had a conviction for the greater part of my life that if the economists who advise the Government had their way, they would advocate wiping out the west of Ireland altogether since it is not an economic proposition from their point of view. This Bill will serve to allay a lot of those fears. I wish it every success and hope the Minister will be able to make it work.

Mr. Crinion

When framing the Bill, the Minister was faced with one very big problem, the 60,000 uneconomic holdings in the country. This Bill is designed to relieve some of those. There are a few aspects of that problem with which the Bill could have dealt more fully, but I still think that in its present form it is a definite step in the right direction. Naturally the Minister must now find the land, and Ireland is not one of those countries where plenty of land is available. There are so many people here looking for the few acres that are available that the solution to this problem is rendered more difficult.

When framing the Bill, the Minister had to consider the size of a farm that would prove economic and I welcome here his target of 40 to 45 acres. In aiming at this size of holding, the Minister is keeping in step with other countries. Holland has arrived at that figure in respect of land being reclaimed from the sea. The Minister also proposes to give people settled on new farms proper houses, more in keeping with modern standards of living. Last year, in the precincts of the House, we had an opportunity of viewing an example of the type of house the Land Commission propose to provide for those people.

I welcome the powers being taken in the Bill to have any area in the country declared a congested area. I hope the Minister uses this power fairly freely because the Land Commission have themselves created an immense amount of congestion throughout my constituency. I would draw the Minister's attention to the area between Dunboyne and Maynooth. There, for five or six miles on either side of the road, one can see a very large number of holdings, each of which comprises no more than 23 or 24 acres. All of these are Land Commission farms, provided out of lands acquired and settled by the Land Commission on those people. It is an area that should definitely be declared a congested area.

I agree it is very close to Dublin and that there may be no other land in the neighbourhood with which to extend those holdings. However, that does not provide any consolation for those people who have to travel miles in order to produce hay and also to take conacre. Their only salvation there will be a declaration of the area as a congested area, and the moving of a number of the people and the redivision of the land among the remainder. The Minister may say there will be a problem about the vacated houses but the area being so near Dublin, there should not be the slightest trouble in that respect because there are hundreds of people working in the city who would be only too anxious to acquire such houses. I suggest the Land Commission seriously apply themselves to that area.

Near Rathmolyon, the Land Commission have divided quite an amount of land in the past 30 years. Between Sallins and Kill, you have Sherlocks-town where all the farmers have 22 acres only. It is to the credit of those people that they have been able to make a livelihood out of those small parcels of land. They have had to struggle to do it and if they had not got a mill contract some years ago, they would have been unable to survive. Now there is a big farm to be divided there, possibly in the spring, and I hope the Land Commission will seriously consider extending the farms of the people in that district, bringing their holdings up to the 45 acre holdings aimed at in the Bill. The Commission will be recognising the work those people have been doing over the years. It is much easier to judge people when you can see the results of their work and I hope that on their results alone, those people will be judged and given the increased acreage they so badly require.

It is good to see that in this Bill we are setting out to remedy some of the past faults of the Land Commission. In order to get the Land we require to settle all the people who need land and who are entitled to it, the Bill proposes the revolutionary step of buying all land that has been set over five years. I agree it is the only possible way of getting all the land we require but I would sound a note of warning that there are exceptional cases.

Take the case of a widow with a young family growing up; take the case of a person who went away for two, three, five years with the hope of coming back with sufficient capital to extend and improve the farm. It would be a cruel thing to take land from such people. A man might go away leaving the family with practically no capital. Naturally he goes out to try to get that capital. I suggest that the Land Commission should not press too severely in regard to some of the land being taken up. By buying land at market value, it will leave land available where otherwise there would be little possibility of that happening. I know areas where no land has been divided for the past 30 years. An example of that is the area of Moone, County Kildare. I was told recently that all the holdings there are uneconomic but no land has come up for division in the area for 30 years. There is a chance, with land being set like that, that the Land Commission will buy it and I hope they will consider giving it to local uneconomic holders. That applies to any area.

The one aspect of the Bill about which I am doubtful is the matter of people coming from the west of Ireland and having their annuities halved while the local people will be charged the full amount. I can see cases where a herd or somebody working on land gets a full holding——

Mr. Browne

Not interrupting, but as the Deputy does say it, is he opposed to that?

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy should be allowed to make his own statement. Posing a question to a Deputy like that is interrupting and should not be done.

Mr. A. Barry

The answer would be very interesting.

An Ceann Comhairle

That may be. There are a great many interesting things——

Mr. Browne

Does the Deputy oppose this?

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy is not entitled to interrupt the Deputy who is speaking.

Mr. Browne

Even for clarification?

An Ceann Comhairle

If the Deputy insists on interrupting, I shall have to ask him to leave the House. He deliberately interrupted the Deputy who was speaking.

Mr. Crinion

Where a person has worked on an estate and has got a full holding, he will be paying double the annuity compared with a person coming from the west of Ireland. We saw this happen in Meath before when you had the old Gaeltacht areas to which people were brought and given literally everything, provided with horses and, I think, they were even paid a certain amount of money each week for six months. It has taken in the region of 30 years or more to break down that barrier between the local people and those in the new Gaeltacht areas. I fear the possibility that we might create something like that again when the local person has to pay double the annuity that the incoming farmer pays.

It is to the credit of the Land Commission that, to some extent they have been able to overcome the situation in time, and it is not too long until the people are able to mix with the community. I feel there might be a danger of this situation recurring. Where a man with land gets only an addition, the difference will not be felt so much as the new rent can be included in the one receivable order, but in the case of a man getting a full holdings and living in the midst of the incoming migrants, he will find on comparing notes that he is paying twice as much as they pay. I should like the Minister to consider that aspect of the Bill again.

I know the principle of paying fully for the land is accepted. Quite a number of the sons of very good farmers have not much hope of getting land in the future. They are second, third or fourth sons and I think if those, or some of them, could be selected through a scholarship scheme or some such scheme and given full holdings, it would be a great achievement as they are people whose whole ambition is centred in the land. With present high values of land, they have no chance of buying a farm as the bank would require repayment in about ten years and the Agricultural Credit Corporation in 15 or 20 years. Their only chance of being able to make a livelihood by buying a farm lies in making repayments over 59 or 60 years. That would give them a chance of buying an economic holding.

In that respect I should have liked this Bill to go further. Perhaps the Minister might amend it on Committee Stage to provide some means of giving farmers' sons a chance to acquire an economic holding. Many of us have seen how they remain at home helping the parents until the age of 23 or 24 when they would like to settle down but are unable to do so.

I feel there is a good chance of getting results through the provision whereby a person may be taken out of the congested area, the Land Commission buying the land from him and giving him a loan to buy an economic holding in another area. Such people will be able to settle themselves elsewhere and the Land Commission are doing a wise thing in providing that only one such person, backed with a loan, may attempt to buy any one holding. Otherwise, further inflation of land prices would be brought about. By allowing only one person to bid for the economic holding in which he is interested, inflation of the price of land will be prevented.

Some speakers have condemned payment by way of Land Bonds. At the moment the Land Bonds stand above par. Even though one cannot redeem them immediately, anyone who wishes to borrow money can do so at a lower rate of interest than he is getting on his bonds. There is really no problem. One can borrow an equivalent sum at about one-quarter per cent less than the rate of interest one is getting on the bonds themselves. There really should be no grouse. I imagine the Exchequer would find it very difficult to pay out hard cash all the time. The loan has to be spread over a period of years. Nobody holding Land Bonds is at a disadvantage because if he wants to buy land, or invest money in any industrial concern, or buy any particular shares, he can borrow the money at a lower rate of interest than the rate he is getting on the bonds. There should be no question of hardship.

I welcome the Bill. It may not go quite as far as I should like it to go, but it is certainly a step in the right direction.

Mr. Farrelly

This is a very important Bill. Most people who are not familiar with County Meath seem to think we have nothing in the county but very large tracts of land with gentlemen farmers and very few working people. I should like now to put some very interesting figures before the House. We have in Meath 13,201 holdings, of which 4,000 odd are under one acre. They are mostly county council cottage plots. Deducting that 4,000 from the total, one gets a figure of 9,090. Between one and 15 acres, there are 2,033. Between 15 and 30 acres, there are 4,324. That gives a round figure of 6,357 holdings under 30 acres. In other words, they are uneconomic holdings. Many of these are in congested areas. According to this Bill, if these holdings are added to, the holders will have to pay the full annuity. If a migrant comes in from a congested area outside the county, his annuity will be halved.

Like the previous speaker, I think this is an unfair discrimination where the local congests are concerned. The full annuity is an imposition on them. Furthermore, a barrier will be created between the migrant who is transplanted to Meath and the people already there. In the case of the former, the annuity will be halved, while, in the case of the latter, the full annuity will have to be paid. If the Land Commission and the Minister want to transfer people from congested areas outside to County Meath, the rent should be fair and equitable for all sections. We have no animosity towards migrants coming in. I want that to be clearly understood. They have been coming in for a long time now and the people have accepted them. The fact remains, however, that uneconomic holders in Meath are crying out for a fair share of lands being divided, and who will blame them? Not even the Minister or the most ardent supporter of Fianna Fáil from the west can blame the people of County Meath for looking for a fair share of the lands of Meath when they are being divided.

I wish now to say something about the activities of the Land Commission. Down through the years, the Land Commission have acquired a great number of holdings in County Meath. I cannot understand why the Land Commission have to hold these lands for, in one case beside Trim town, almost seven years. Those lands have been in the hands of the Land Commission since 17/4/'57. One or two holdings have been given off those lands. This was a very big farm and there are still between 400 and 500 acres undivided. I cannot understand why the Land Commission cannot make up their minds, in a period of five or six years, as to whom they will allot these lands. The applicants who applied when the lands were first acquired are long since dead and their descendants are applicants now.

It is a mystery to me why there should be such a delay. Some maintain that the Department of Lands do not want to give land to the local people, that they want to bring in migrants. It is also said that, because of a certain amount of agitation, they are afraid to allocate the lands to migrants. I do not believe the Land Commission would be concerned about such matters and I think they should have done something before now. There are many uneconomic holdings in and around that farm.

We have in County Meath men who only own from ten to 15 acres of land. They are engaged in dairying. Many may wonder how a man with such a small acreage could engage in dairying. The fact is he rents lands on the 11-months system and, one way or another, he is able to keep ten or 15 cows and make a living for himself and his family. If, as the Minister has promised in this Bill, he will acquire these farms that are let beyond five years or farms that are not being husbanded in a proper way, and the congests in the area do not get a proportion of these lands, these men will have to go out of business. They will have no alternative. They will not be able to feed their cows. They will not be able to rent land. They will have to go out of business. Is it a good proposition, I wonder, to put a new man into an area if, in doing so, you put another man out? I appeal to the Minister to give a fair share to local congests and uneconomic holders when lands are being divided. That is all I ask. That is all the congests and the uneconomic holders in Meath ask.

We have in County Meath a number of farmers' sons, young men who were reared on farms of from 30 to 50 acres. There may be second or third sons, as Deputy Crinion has said. They work the holdings. The parents die off and one of the sons inherits the farm. He gets married. The only thing the boys know is farming. There is room for only one family on the farm. The others become landless men. They cannot get a farm from the Land Commission, though they would have a little capital, be able to stock a farm and have the know-how. I would seriously recommend to the Minister and the Land Commission that they consider the position of these men. It is bad to see the sons of traditional farmers having to emigrate or take up different employment when they are about 30 years of age. It is not good for the country as a whole.

There is another aspect of the policy of the Land Commission with which I do not agree, that is, the letting of land for tillage. They have been doing that in my county for a number of years. They have been letting land for tillage to wheat ranchers and to small farmers also. These people have been tilling the land for two, three or four years and when the Land Commission come to allot it, perhaps two-thirds of it is in stubble and very often it is more weeds than stubble. The new tenant is then expected to bring it back to fertility.

The argument of the Land Commission in favour of this practice is that they will give grass to reseed the land and bring it back to fertility but I have seen many of these men trying to bring the land back into heart and it takes them four or five years to do so. A man gets 30 acres of land and 15 or 16 acres of this land can be in stubble, with low fertility. It can take him four or five years to get it back and he will not become a prosperous farmer overnight. I would suggest that the Land Commission cut out that practice so that the fertility will not be taken from the land. The Land Commission are in a better position to purchase and allocate land when it is in good condition than the poor fellow who gets it and has to bring it back to fertility.

It is implied in this Bill that all letting of land is bad but I could not hold that all letting on the 11-months system is bad. We may have the case of a widow with a small family to whom no other course is open but to let the land on the 11-months system. Land in the midlands commands a fair price and that widow is able to survive until some member of her family can take over the farm. There is a market for this type of land and many people let their lands to get them over their difficulty.

You can have the person who inherits a farm with an old debt on it, and very little stock. If he owes £1,000 or £2,000 to the bank, he cannot go to the manager and say that he wants another £2,000 to stock it. He has no option but to let the land, unless he is to sell it and few people who come from traditional farming families want to do that. They want to hold on to their land and to work it so what they do is to let it for seven, eight or ten years until they get on their feet. Then they usually turn out to be good farmers. I know dozens of people in County Meath who have done that.

The letting of land can also help out the uneconomic holder who is engaged in the milk business, as many of them are. There are many aspects of land letting which are not bad and many of those people after a struggle of up to ten years to get out of debt find themselves free of debt but also find that they have to go back to the bank for another £1,000 to stock the land. So they keep on letting. For that reason I do not agree with the people who say that all letting of land is bad.

We also have a number of cottiers in County Meath. Some of them are agricultural labourers and some of them are industrial workers. All the land they have is one cottage plot but some of them have a couple of cows and rear a few calves. The wife and family look after the stock while the man is away and they rent pieces of land for this purpose. I think such people should be considered in the allocation of land, even if they got only accommodation plots. Years ago in County Meath, the Land Commission gave accommodation plots of about five acres each to cottiers in certain cases. They did not all work out very well. Land was not so valuable then as it is today and many of these sold their accommodation plots, with the result that the Land Commission developed a prejudice against them. Today it is very rarely that a man in a cottage will get a plot from the Land Commission but I think they should be considered.

There is another section in the Bill about which I am perturbed, that is, the section giving power to the Land Commission to serve notice on a farmer telling him that he cannot offer his land for sale. I agree that the term may be short but we have all heard a lot about the fight for the right of free sale in this country. The farmers are quite satisfied to have the rights of free sale and I would seriously suggest to the Minister that he have another look at this section of the Bill to see if there is some other way of getting over this problem of the acquisition of land without the service of this notice on the farmer and the holding up of free sale, if a farmer wants to sell.

This section may look harmless enough today but the Minister will not always be here and the members of the Land Commission as we know them today will not always be here. But this section will be on the Statute Book. How do we know who will be Minister for Lands or what the personnel of the Land Commission will be in ten years' time? That section in the hands of an unscrupulous official of the Land Commission could do a lot of damage to the farmers of this country. I suggest to the Minister that he should not let it be said that it was an Irish Minister in an Irish Parliament who advocated interference with the farmers' right of free sale.

Mr. Gallagher

I will not delay the House very long in welcoming this new Land Bill. Previous Land Bills have worked fairly well but we all know the extraordinary delays which took place in their implementation. This Bill is to be welcomed if only for the amending clauses which smooth out and speed up the division of land. It has one or two novel features and these I welcome in as much as they embody the recommendations contained in the report of the Commission on Small Farms in the west of Ireland. I refer to sections 5 and 6.

The job of the Minister for Lands is never an easy one. I do not think the land question in Ireland will ever be settled or that this Bill will solve all our problems. Hunger for land is wide-spread here. Listening to the speeches in this House, it would appear that everybody wants land and that Leinster has as many problems as Connacht. Of course, that is absolutely untrue. Any examination of the size of holdings and the density of land will show that Connacht is very badly placed indeed. The land in the west is not of the same quality or fertility as the land in other parts of the country.

The last speaker talked about small farms in Meath. In Sligo-Leitrim, there are 21,485 holdings, and examination will show that 60 per cent of these are under 30 acres while 26 are under 15 acres. To resolve that problem, all the land cannot be found in Sligo-Leitrim. I am aware there are many vacated small holdings in Sligo-Leitrim which, for one reason or another, are not available to the Land Commission. They are held on to for some sentimental or other reasons. I strongly hold that the land of Ireland belongs to the Irish people and those who have land have a duty to keep it at a high standard of fertility and see that it is used to produce for the people of the nation. Keeping it for sentimental reasons, allowing it to become infertile and overgrown with weeds and rushes, is a disgrace. The sooner we look at this question of sentimentality in a more realistic light, in the light of the nation's needs, the sooner we will make progress on these matters.

This Bill is to be welcomed for many of its innovations. Apart from its novel features, the fact that it will tend to speed up land deals between the Commission and the vendors is to be especially welcomed. Sections 15 and 16 give power to the Commission to delegate to the examiner the function of making a decision. That will speed up matters. Furthermore, a subsequent clause indemnifies him if a mistake is made. That will further encourage the examiner to do the job speedily. Sometimes it takes up to four years to clear title. Again, under sections 15 and 16, a shorter title will be adequate. That provision will speed up the process.

Payment for land is dealt with in section 25. Heretofore, when the Land Commission took over a farm, the owner was paid in Land Bonds at the prevailing rate, although four or five years might elapse before he got these bonds. This section provides for payment in current bonds. This will make the acceptance of Land Bonds more welcome, since they are running over par, at 102. There is always the farmer who likes to get cash. I would ask the Minister as far as he can to authorise the payment of cash, especially for small holdings, where the amount is only £1,000 or £2,000.

The control of sub-letting of land is also an admirable feature of the Bill. It is only proper that the Land Commission should have full information on what is being done with land. It is only fair that those who let land should at least notify the Land Commission they are so doing. In this way the Commission will have far better information. If there are good grounds for people letting land, the Land Commission are sympathetic enough to be told about it rather than have behind-the-scenes-letting, as if the Land Commission were an oppressive body who would put them out immediately they let the land. If land is let for years and neglected by the tenant, it is high time we took stock of that situation. Throughout the length and breadth of the country, there is much of that type of land which is a disgrace to the nation. The sooner it is taken over by the Land Commission, brought to full fertility and allocated to those prepared to farm it, the better.

Section 5 is a novel feature, recommended to some degree in the report on small farms in the west. Under this provision, a person living in a congested area who decides to move out and buy a farm may have his existing holding valued by the Land Commission. He can go to the public auction with his money and the Land Commission will lend him sufficient money, in addition to that which he obtains for his farm, to enable him buy the holding of his choice. That provision is qualified by the stipulation that he must be a progressive farmer. That is only right. I believe this will get the more forward-looking of our young farmers moving into good farms of land where they will use their ability to good effect and make a reasonable living.

Section 6 deals with elderly or incapacitated people living on farms. They can be compensated for the land and allowed to live on in the home and get an annuity based on the value of their holding. That should be a great help to quite a number of people. In the case of a small holding of seven or eight acres, worth £400 or £500, one wonders what type of annuity that would produce and what the actuarial assessment would be. I cannot give the answer. It would want to be fairly reasonable, assuming a person might live from ten to 15 years. I have no doubt that actuaries will work it out and it should be fairly attractive.

There is one thing to be commented on in reference to that section. It is stated in the explanatory memorandum that "so much of a relevant life-annuity as does not exceed £3 a week is not to be reckonable for old age pension means test purposes." That is a very useful provision and one which I heartily welcome.

The retention of halved annuities for congested areas is an admirable provision, although I have heard Deputies from other parts of the country objecting to migrants from congested areas being treated sympathetically in this way as against those in areas that are not congested. I do not think that they have any good or valid argument. Seldom does one hear of land in congested areas fetching the high price for conacre or even for grazing as is obtainable in parts of Leinster and Munster. Seldom is there a dearth of purchasers for land when it is offered for sale anywhere. In the west of Ireland, in Sligo-Leitrim, as I know it, there are many farmers with large families living on small holdings who certainly are not in a position to save a large sum of money to be able to meet a high annuity, as compared with people in richer and more fertile parts of Ireland.

In any case, the most chronic problem of congestion exists in the west of Ireland. If this country, if this Government and if this House have any regard for the west of Ireland, they must live up to their responsibilities and help the west to a far greater extent. Irrespective of the needs of other parts of Ireland, Connacht does need help. A small farmer in the west of Ireland does need encouragement. Even if this has to be given to him at the expense of other sections of the community, I say that Connacht needs it.

The people who today live on the land in Connacht are there not by any desire of their own but as a result of an edict issued years ago: "To hell or to Connacht." Land in many parts of the west of Ireland is largely reclaimed bog and mountain on which God never intended that men should live. Conditions, privations and history drove them into it. Now, the effort of a Minister here to take these people out of these conditions, to put many of them back into the parts of Ireland from which their forebears were driven, deserves the highest credit and the highest merit.

I now wish to refer to the section whereby dealings in land may be to some degree controlled. Deputy Farrelly deplored the idea that free sale should be abolished. I also deplore the idea that free sale should be abolished but there is nothing in this Bill to abolish free sale. There is provision in this Bill to stop the underhand dealing that has been going on.

At times the Land Commission are blamed for not taking immediate action when land is put up for sale. Deputies are constantly called upon when a farm is up for sale to make representations to have it taken over by the Land Commission. We know that this is virtually impossible as the law at present stands, that there must be a report and examination of the position before the Land Commission can act. In this Bill the Minister proposes to do something about it, and I welcome the provision. It means that when this Bill has been passed, if the local inspector of the Land Commission is interested in a farm, he can immediately serve notice, pending examination of the position by the Land Commission, and if the Land Commission are not interested in acquiring the farm, they can say so within 12 months and if they are interested in acquiring a farm, they can negotiate a price. Any auctioneer or solicitor is well aware that the Land Commission always pay the last penny. That provision is to be welcomed and I hope it will be used effectively and prudently and that it will have the proper and desired effect.

Since the Bill was circulated, I have discussed this section with farmers and have pointed out to them that it is a section that might at some time affect them if they were selling land, that notice might be served on them that they could not sell. That did not seem to upset them at all. Several of them have told me that they would be glad if the Land Commission were to buy their land and pay them cash, that they pay as much as anybody else. That is how they reacted.

I wish the Bill a speedy passage through the House and hope it will have general acceptance by the nation and will do the good that I know the Minister so earnestly hopes it will do.

Mr. Donnellan

It seemed to me that the last speaker and the two previous speakers from Meath wished to have Meath declared a congested area. I do not know what the Minister will do if that has to happen. One Deputy tried to throw cold water on the idea of migrants coming from the west of Ireland. I come through part of that Deputy's constituency on my way from Galway. I have met businessmen in small towns in the heart of Ireland who have told me that, were it not for the migrants who came there from the west of Ireland, the towns of the midlands would be ghost towns. They told me that some 15 years ago they might stand at their counters all day and never see anybody, and that things are very different now because of the migrants. There may be a failure or two amongst the migrants. In every walk of life, there are failures. At least 95 per cent of the migrants have proved successful.

There is a section in this Bill whereby a migrant is given two years in which to make good. That is much too short a period. Previously migrants got seven years in which to prove themselves. A period of two years is much too short a period to allow a man to get on his feet or transfer to a strange area where, as a Deputy on this side of the House stated, he may not be too well received either. It is a disgrace that such should be the case because in very many cases that migrant is a man whose forefathers were driven from this land. We remember well the story of Cromwell. It was "To hell or to Connacht". It is a long time since that statement was made. I trust that those who in the recent past have come and those who we hope will come in greater numbers in the near future will be well received. Anyhow I have no doubt they are used to hard times and will make their presence felt.

I have been a member of this House for about 22 years. I have seen many Ministers for Lands come and go. From what I know of the job, I would say that very few of them ever wished to stay there very long because they were always in a very awkward position. Questions are put down here to them and no matter from which side of the House they come, the answer is always: "The Land Commission have decided". I thought it regrettable that that should continue, as I am afraid it will continue. That is why I say this Bill falls far short of what I hoped it would do.

The Minister talks about 45 to 50 acres of land. I hope that every migrant will be able to get that, that every man in the west of Ireland who is looking for additional land will be able to get it but where will the Minister get it? Take my own county of Galway. There are 2,945 people under £2 valuation. They all want holdings of 50 acres each. There are 4,113 farmers there whose valuations range from £2 to £4; there are 4,096 farmers whose valuations range from £4 to £7; there are 3,544 farmers whose valuations range from £7 to £7 10; and there are 4,933 farmers whose valuations range from £10 to £15. That makes a total of 19,620 uneconomic holders in my county alone. The situation is much worse in the Minister's county of Mayo. The same thing applies to Sligo and Leitrim, and to Roscommon to a certain extent. Would the Minister not need the Six Counties to have enough land for all these people? Nothing less than 50 acres of arable land is any use.

When I refer to the Minister, I mean the Land Commission to a certain extent. In passing, let me say that I deal with the Land Commission here in Dublin and elsewhere. I have dealt with the inspectors and commissioners in Galway city, in Castlerea and in Dublin. As far as I am concerned, whether in Castlerea, Galway or Dublin, there is nothing I can say against the inspectors of the Land Commission. They would do anything in the world to be helpful and I despise any Deputy who would stand up in this House and say you would have to have so-and-so or do so-and-so. That is not the case. It is a disgrace that it should be said or allowed to be said in this House.

Deputies

Hear, hear.

Mr. Donnellan

What have the Land Commission done for the past number of years while large farms of land have been sold to foreigners? For the benefit of the Minister and the Land Commission, I will name them. The following is an indication of the amount of land sold to foreigners within the past few years: Culmullen, 250 acres; again in Culmullen, 140 acres; Clonee, 200 acres; Kells, 200 acres; Athboy, 500 acres; Balrath, 260 acres; Brakestown, 900 acres; Trim, 150 acres; Ardbraccan, 260 acres; Knockdrim, 1,600 acres; Edenderry, 250 acres; Athy, 600 acres; Naas, 500 acres; Straffan, 160 acres; Moyvalley, 400 acres; Ratoath, 100 acres; Slane, 100 acres; Ashbourne, 100 acres; Johnstown, 100 acres; Straffan again, 200 acres; Dunboyne, 200 acres; Dunshaughlin, 300 acres; Slane again, 100 acres; Rathkenny, 100 acres; Trim again, 200 acres; Enniskerry, 100 acres; Brittas, 300 acres; Barndarrig, 200 acres; Moneylands, 200 acres; Aughrim, 240 acres; Bree, 100 acres; Enniskerry again, 100 acres; Blackwater, 200 acres; Oylegate, 100 acres; Tinahely, 500 acres; Emo, 100 acres; Carrigbanoro, 100 acres; Tullow, 200 acres; Valleymount, 100 acres; Kinsale, 300 acres; Bandon, 500 acres; Murrenstown, 100 acres; Murrenstown again, 50 acres; Ballyhogue, 387 acres; Silversprings, 164 acres; Woodtown, 51 acres; Bannow, 420 acres; Bally-vodalk, 294 acres; Ballycarney, 160 acres; Inch, 400 acres.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Would the Deputy give the source of his quotation?

Mr. Donnellan

I have got my information from a most reliable source. Otherwise, I would not quote it.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

When a Deputy quotes, it is usual to give the source of his quotation.

Mr. Donnellan

I cannot at the moment but I assure you the figures are correct. The Land Commission have allowed that to go on over the past few years. They have no notion of giving 50 acres to a migrant. Where will they get the land? We hear the Minister being pushed by Deputies from Meath, on his own side of the House as well as on this side, to declare County Meath an uneconomic area.

Again I ask, where will this additional land come from? They are the things I want to know. The Minister knows as well as I do that as far as we are concerned in the west of Ireland, the tenant farmers there are in reservations like Red Indians.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

Hear, hear.

Mr. Donnellan

Exactly like Red Indians. I am sure, Sir, you will allow me to say that, were it not for the good work done by Lieutenant General Costello on behalf of the small tenant farmers of the west of Ireland, thousands of them would have gone today in the footsteps of the thousands who have already gone. Were it not for these schemes—the acre and a half of beet, the acre of potatoes, the acre or so of vegetables —they would all have left. No man has done more than he has for the west of Ireland. He was a God-send to the workers there and he deserves the tribute I am now paying him.

Only today I had a letter from a man in Ballygar, pointing out the number of holdings in that area available for re-settlement. The letter is signed by seven tenant farmers. I shall send that letter to the Minister so that he can let the Land Commission have it.

Another matter troubles me considerably. Where father and mother die, perhaps, the son goes to England for a few years in order to earn some money to keep the holding going at home. I do not think it is fair, I do not think it is honest, that the Land Commission should go in immediately and take that land. Very many of those people come back — of course many of them do not come back and never intended coming back — and make very good farmers afterwards. I would appeal, therefore, to the Minister not to be too drastic in cases of that kind. He should allow a certain number of years to elapse before taking up the holding.

This Bill falls far short of my wishes in many respects. I make bold to say that it fails in the same respect as every Land Bill introduced here since the late Deputy Hogan brought in his in 1923—that it does not put a ceiling on the number of acres any one man may hold. You have people who own 1,000 acres, 2,000 acres and some even 5,000 acres. Are such people to be allowed to get away with saying to the Land Commission: "We are looking after it well; we are using it well; and I defy you to take it from us."

Now this Bill protects those people again. I make bold to say that in my 22 years in the House—with the help of God, I shall be 22 more years here —I have been advocating the placing of a ceiling on the number of acres any one person may hold. I entirely agree with Deputy Carty on this. In County Galway I know people who own 1,000 acres. I shall not mention their names, however. When I read the speech of Deputy Millar here, I had a laugh because I recall his speech in Ballinasloe six months ago when he said the Minister proposed to put a ceiling on the number of acres any one person could hold.

Mind you, the Minister did not take his advice—the ceiling is not there. In a country like this, such a provision is most desirable. It is very easy to blame the Land Commission for holding up the division of the land already in their hands. I used that cry quite a lot in my earlier days here but now I appreciate the Land Commission's difficulty. I shall instance the case of a man living in my village who had three holdings of land. A year and a half ago, that land was offered to the Land Commission and a decision was made on it only last August.

In reply to a question by another Deputy, I made a statement on the Estimate for the Department in connection with the taking up of that land. I made a slight slip and added six months to the length of time over which I had been making representations. Of course the Minister said I was actually telling lies. Such was not the case. That land is taken now. It was taken at my request to the Land Commission and not at the request of anybody else.

I must say I am afraid there is not a hope in the world of achieving the Minister's target of 40 to 45 acre holdings, when you go over the list I read out, when you find that in the west of Ireland alone, in the province of Connacht alone, there is a total of 95,323 uneconomic holdings. I agree the Minister will solve part of the problem of land scarcity by taking up many of those holdings that have been unworked, unoccupied or let for years. That will be a help but not to the extent that we would hope for. As a matter of fact, without setting a ceiling on the number of acres any one man may hold, there is, in my opinion, no hope of generally applying this principle of 45-acre holdings.

We have heard Deputies from the midlands saying that some migrants who came up there did not make a success of their holdings. I disagree completely. They certainly did make a success of them—at least 95 per cent did. We have heard it said that there was no welcome for these migrants, that very little is thought of them. I should like some of these people in the midlands to realise that those are the true Celts, the people whose forefathers were driven from those lands by Cromwell. I should like the Minister and the Land Commission to realise that also.

That is all I have to say except that I wish the Minister well, probably much more so than he thinks. I wish him every success. Any comments I have made on the Bill were made in an attempt to improve the measure. There is one amendment I hope the Minister will introduce later—that a ceiling be set to the acreage of land held by any individual.

Mr. Medlar

I congratulate the Minister on introducing this Bill which apparently is very well received by all sides, with a few exceptions. It is very interesting to hear the views of Deputies from different constituencies with their different outlooks, definitions and interpretations, all of which may be right from their own point of view. We have heard the former Minister for Lands saying that if the Land Commission do not act soon, there will be nobody to take land in his part of the country, that people are flying from it due to Government policy. The position is altogether different in my constituency where more money is being invested in land every day. The uneconomic holder has little hope of extending his acreage in competition with larger farmers. His only hope is in the activities of the Land Commission because land prices in my own immediate district go as high as £500 per Irish acre.

I have heard it said here that under section 5 of the Bill, which is very laudable, loans may be given to more progressive congests for the purchase of farms. I shall assume that in my part of Leinster they might be able to pay £8,000 or £10,000 but I wonder where is the uneconomic holder who would be able to repay that sum with interest? There might be hope if congests in that particular district were facilitated in that way. I trust the Minister will give those facilities to congests in every part of the country because if they are progressive and enterprising, they must surely have confidence in their own future.

The giving of life annuities to old people under section 6 is also very laudable and I should like it to apply to every part of the county, in fact, perhaps more to Leinster than to Connacht. Exception has been taken to sections 13 and 27 by some members of the Opposition. Those, I believe, are two important sections and if you remove them, you are only tinkering with the whole question of land resettlement. Section 13, I understand, is designed to prevent quick sales intended to frustrate the work of the Land Commission. In the past year or so in my constituency, estates have been sold in that very way and if a local inspector had had the power that is now being given to him in this Bill, those estates would now be in the possession of the Land Commission for division among local uneconomic holders in some of the most congested districts.

Section 27 gives a senior inspector power to serve this Section 40 notice which would cover the very point I have mentioned. A junior inspector may only make a report to a senior inspector who in turn submits his recommendations or suggestions to the Lay Commissioners who act upon these reports. Only recommendations are submitted for sanction and therefore I cannot see very much that is revolutionary in that section of the Bill.

Section 34 makes the land of the absentee landowner more vulnerable to acquisition. There is another section giving the right to the Land Commission to hold up the sale of a farm for 12 months and I hold that those four sections together will play a big part in preventing the sale of land to foreigners. Under section 27 as I understand it, if a farmer is served with a section 40 notice, it does not prevent him putting his farm up for public auction with a view to getting its full market value, if he intends to sell it, but if the Land Commission are prepared to pay the same price as the highest bidder, the issue of the notice gives them the right to purchase it.

Generally, this Bill is very welcome. It is a pity that over the years Land Bills were introduced which only tinkered with the problem. The main feature of this Bill is the giving of more power to the Land Commission to acquire land and it is a step in the right direction. As regards conditions of allotments, that is a matter in respect of which I am inclined to differ to some extent from what is in the Bill. I also differ in regard to the provision relating to the letting of land and I would like to know the motive for it.

I know what I am talking about, too. Three-year letting should be encouraged—encouraged with a capital E. I claim to come from an area where there are good farmers and if land is let for three years, even for grazing, the purchaser will put balanced manure on it according to the recommendation of the local agricultural adviser but if he gets it for one year, he will do no such thing. If land is let for three years for conacre, it is usually set for cereals, roots and cereals, and that is surely farming according to good farming rules. Setting land for 11 months in my part of the country is bad farming. I do not know what situation obtains in other parts, but I suggest that where land is being set for three years for corn, roots and corn, the permission of the Land Commission should not have to be sought.

Concerning conditions of allotment, I find over the years, in my constituency anyway, that owners of freehold land are generally not recognised for land allotment. A land owner having 15 acres under the Land Commission is recognised but farmers with a freehold may not be. In fact I know a ten-acre farmer having a freehold on his land who purchased a 30-acre farm and the Land Commission would not certify it on the ground that he had a freehold. At the same time, if a man with a chequebook came in and purchased it, he would be facilitated all along the way. It is a case of facilitating the man with the chequebook and frustrating the small farmer and I would like to have him put in the same category.

There is another condition which I should like to see at least extended. An uneconomic holder must live within a mile of an estate before he can qualify for an allotment. I do know that in the distant past the Land Commission gave allotments to small farmers living four miles away or over. Perhaps in the course of time since it was in the days of horsepower, this may have been considered uneconomic. Many allottees may have sold their allotted portion and the Land Commission record showed that allottees got sanction from the Land Commission for a bona fide reason: distance, that it was too far from their own farm. The result was that the Land Commission reduced the mileage, but surely in the days of mechanisation they could increase it.

The position obtains in my constituency that we have pockets of congestion, some of Land Commission creation. You have conacre men taking conacre from an estate some miles away. Subsequently it may be sold and purchased by a large farmer, on the one hand or taken by the Land Commission, on the other. Those unfortunates, those grade A farmers, are denied allotments on the grounds of distance. After they have spent a whole lifetime working 30 or 40 acres of that estate and rearing a family successfully on that land, the Land Commission man tells them that to give them allotments would not be economic. But these people are the real experts on what is or is not economic. Where such people have that record, they should be given at least two miles. That is not asking for too much. If you do not accept that, you are going to create a very grave injustice in my constituency. There are very few estates left for acquisition now and the only hope of those men is to get a parcel if ever they are acquired, as some are at the moment.

Another very deserving and, I think, not very popular type of land applicant is the cottier or the conacre landless man. That is emphasised by the fact that there are only three or four counties in the 26 where there are such men in any great number. I happen to live in one of these constituencies. We have cottiers, landless men, who before the advent of mechanisation, were fully equipped with horsepower. Then they switched over to mechanisation. I know of cottiers who are fully mechanised and who live by conacre. Where that can be proved, I would ask the Land Commission to give them favourable consideration, even for an accommodation plot.

Now with this new idea of processing foods, particularly in the vicinity of the new processing plant in Carlow, accommodation for those landless men to grow fruit and vegetables would be ideal. It is the small farmer that you may depend upon to grow these food crops and if you want their record over the years, you will get it in the sugar factories. You need not depend on their own statements. All those people have ordered their way of life in that way over generations through real work. They are assets to the country, people of whom any country could feel proud. Their record proves that they are prepared to compete in the Common Market or anywhere else on equal terms. The men I have in mind are equal to the best farmers in Europe. They farm the land owned by landowners. Some of the landowners who set their land may describe themselves as farmers but what I describe as a farmer is the man who works his land.

I will not go back to the definition of lands being properly worked, but I believe this: If the Land Commission were to take over in the morning all the lands of the 26 Counties that are not being properly worked, they would take over more than 50 per cent. How much land is soil-tested, tested to see if elements need to be replaced? How many landowners have their land brought up to the correct state? The Land Commission may acquire estates on the ground that they are not being properly worked but do they examine the people to whom they are giving them, the uneconomic holders, to see if their holdings are being properly worked?

Mr. Donnellan

They do.

Mr. Medlar

It is a big question and debatable. If you like, you may call it local or narrow, but my main case is for the uneconomic conacre farmers living within two miles of a given estate who have worked all their lives on it and the landless conacre men of Carlow and parts of North Kilkenny. When you relieve the congestion there, I shall be delighted to welcome the people who were driven across the Shannon in the distant past.

Mr. T. Dunne

My intervention in this debate will not be very long, but I wish to voice my disapproval of one section of this Bill, section 7, as I feel that this section defeats the whole purpose of the Land Commission. It provides that in future certain classes of persons who receive an allotment of land on an annuity basis will not benefit by the halving of annuities under the Land Act of 1933. The classes affected are: (1) farmers with existing holdings who may receive enlargements in non-congested areas, and (2) cottiers and other persons who may get allotments in non-congested areas where surplus land is available.

This section 7 relates to the discontinuance of the halving of the annuities. In my constituency, which is considered a non-congested area, there are 13,519 holdings of under £30 valuation and the total number of holdings in the county is 19,945. I feel that the discontinuance will mean that a person who receives an addition of land will pay approximately £9 7s. 6d. per acre of an annuity, plus £1 rates. It would be a lot cheaper for him to take conacre because he could throw it up any time he felt that he was not making money or was falling down on the job. I am informed that the annuity on land purchased at £100 per acre is £6 5s., and land in my constituency is going at roughly £150 to £200 per acre.

I should like the Minister to clarify the position of cottiers with reference to the division of land. These people live in hope and die in despair. Most of them are farmers and expect to get land when a holding is going near them, but the only cottier entitled to land is a person who loses employment or who is employed on the estate on the day it is acquired by the Land Commission. The Minister should put in a definite section clarifying the position of a cottier. These cottiers are men who derive their livelihood solely from agriculture—from conacre, grazing or otherwise. They put a lot of hard work and money into farming but they can never acquire a farm on their own. They might possibly have capital enough to work a farm but not to purchase one. The Minister should make some provision for them.

As regards section 13 of the Bill, which introduces a system of control in the letting and selling of land, under the section, where a farmer is letting land and the Land Commission step in to acquire it, he cannot let or sell the land for 12 months. That is an undue hardship on the person who owns that land, for he may not be in a position to carry on for 12 months without some income, and that section should be amended. The Bill in general appears to be a move to migrate the whole west of Ireland into the south and midland counties.

Mr. P. Brennan

This Bill has been generally well received in the House and up to last evening most of the contributions were very much in favour of its provisions. We had most of the western Deputies here applauding the Minister for taking the very necessary powers he is seeking to provide the Land Commission with the machinery that will create a larger pool of land for the relief of congestion. Then we had a typical Fine Gael effort yesterday evening when we had some front bench members coming in to tell us that we were doing something unconstitutional and were encroaching on the rights of the individual by the introduction of certain provisions of this Bill. If these provisions were to be withdrawn, then it would be just something that might have been in operation already. Sections 4, 13 and 27 have made me stand up to welcome it wholeheartedly, even though I come from the eastern part of the country.

We had Deputy MacEoin telling us that section 4 should not be in the Bill because it might be abused by some Minister in the future. He did say, of course, that he would not accuse the present Minister of abusing it. Neither would I or any other member of this Party do so, and I think it is very wrong for any Deputy to suggest that the people who will succeed us will be dishonest. We look forward to Dáil Éireann remaining, probably extended to embrace the whole 32 counties, and a Minister of State here in the eighties will be as honourable and honest as the Ministers who are now here in the sixties and as the people were in the forties. It comes very badly from a man who has spent so many years in this House to suggest that we will have that type of person in future representing the people of the country.

I welcome the Bill because of the inclusion of section 4. That section holds out the only hope to a congest in my constituency that something will be done for him. I understand from the Minister's speech that he intends to have local surveys carried out to see where there are pockets of congestion and if there are such pockets, he will have them classed as congested areas. When that survey is taking place, I hope that my county will be included, and I am satisfied that if it is and a thorough investigation is carried out, some congests in part of the county can look forward to getting the full benefit of this Bill that is being made available to small farmers in the non-congested districts.

If sections 13 and 27 were removed from the Bill or amended in any way, its whole purpose would be defeated.

As I say, if section 4 is extended to the eastern midlands and the eastern parts of the country, I see some hope under section 5 of relieving the problem of congests in my constituency. I take it that if we have areas in County Wicklow classified as congested areas, then farmers in that area will be entitled to avail of the benefits of the Bill whereby loans will be made available by the Land Commission for the relief of their congestion. That is a good provision because plenty of small farmers will in the future be able to solve their own congestion problem. I take it that what will happen is that the Minister or the Land Commission will put a value on each of those congested farms, so that the farmer can go to an auction with the knowledge that a certain amount of money is available to him in terms of hard cash, which will influence him to go whatever distance he wishes after that to provide a farm for himself. If money is needed to make up any difference, it will be made available through the Land Commission and repaid on an annuity basis. That will help us, too, in the eastern parts to solve our problem of congestion.

Section 6 deals with the acquisition of land that is in the possession of or occupied by elderly people. I know of one or two such cases myself. I hope that the Bill will also deal with the case of a bachelor or a married couple. Will the same facilities be available to an elderly brother and sister living on a farm? I hope they will be. This is a good approach because we find a brother and a sister living on a large farm but yet they are living in poverty. The social welfare code does not provide for such people because their valuation is very high. I know of one such case and what has happened is that some of the slick boys have got the land from these people for half nothing. I am certain that in some cases they do not pay sufficient to meet the rent and rates and the unfortunate people are living on very very small incomes. If the Minister proposes to deal with that type of case, he has my full support so that these people may be provided for in their old age. I am sure they will be patriotic to make their land available for the relief of congestion not only in their own area but generally. The Minister is sure to meet this type of case and in cases where the brother may own the holding, I hope the sister will be provided for also.

Section 7 deals with annuities and I take it that where land is made available, the small uneconomic holder in the non-congested district will have to pay the full annuity. I hope the Minister will have second thoughts about that aspect. Congestion differs from one part of the country to another. Yesterday somebody said that a man with an acre of land in one part might be considered a small farmer and he would not be considered a farmer at all in the rest of the country. I do not see why people in the non-congested districts should be expected to pay the full annuities, why they should not benefit from the existing legislation in regard to annuities. The Minister may have been influenced in doing this by the agitation, and the deputations he has received in recent years, about land division. I have been on a deputation which included a number of people from outside my constituency and they told me how much they were paying for conacre. As far as my constituency is concerned, we do not have that problem. We have not many people who go in for conacre. The small uneconomic holder in the western part of the county will have to go to Kildare to get an acre or two to provide a green crop, potatoes or vegetables, or perhaps oats, to feed his family and his livestock but he is not in it in a big way and he has no intention of going into it in a big way because he could not afford to. In counties adjoining mine, people are paying £24 an acre. I think they are mad.

I met one man from Deputy Medlar's constituency who was paying £800 a year for conacre and even at that, the land was not in a block. He got a couple of acres here and a couple of acres there. The sum of £800 a year would finance a loan of about £10,000 from the Agricultural Credit Corporation and the man could have his own holding. With conacre, he has nothing at the end and in a bad year, he has nothing. He may be enterprising enough to have purchased machinery and the only way he can go on is to have conacre. When he goes to the auction, he has to pay exorbitant prices because of the keen competition. To my mind, £24 or £25 per acre is exorbitant. That is not the general pattern of conacre throughout the country. If the Minister has based this section on the assumption that people generally pay that kind of money for conacre, I think he is wrong. He should have another look at this and provide facilities for the allottees on the same basis as heretofore.

I welcome section 18, which deals with gaming rights. A number of farmers in my constituency are very anxious to become the owners of their own gaming rights. I applied to the Land Commission some six or eight months ago in regard to this matter and nothing happened. It was only within the past week or two that I discovered there is a very cumbersome type of machinery and all the files had to be examined by the local inspector who has to carry out an investigation to discover if the landlord who had the rights used them for the past 20 years or so. The Land Commission are not geared for that type of thing because the inspectors have enough to do with regard to land without having to deal with gaming rights. I welcome anything that will simplify that procedure. I hope the farmers in Wicklow who have already applied will get their gaming rights even before this Bill is fully implemented. However, people who apply in the future will have a much easier passage.

One other point with which I should like to deal is in relation to the purchase of land by foreigners. A lot of lip-service is paid to this problem. Some Fine Gael speakers, and admittedly some of our own Party have spent a considerable amount of time dealing with this question. Quite recently, I brought to the notice of the Land Commission the case of a holding of something like 600 acres in Wicklow which had been advertised for letting in eight and ten acre lots. The person who owns the land does not reside there and anything the Minister can do to deal with that case he should do immediately. I hope the Land Commission take action in that regard.

To get back to the lip-service paid here, I remember that in 1956, in my constituency, a County Wicklow man tried to purchase a farm. The Land Commission were then interested in it. Being a good Irishman, when he got to know the Land Commission were interested—and they were definitely interested—he decided he would not bother with the farm there and would go elsewhere. In the course of 12 months, we found that a foreigner purchased the farm and the Land Commission withdrew all their interest in it. That was at a time when we had the Fine Gael people in Government. They now come in here and talk about the influx of these foreigners. The foreigners were coming in here in the time of the Coalition Government and I do not know that much was done about it. At the same time, I should be glad if the Minister would do something to discourage it. There is little enough land in this country for the number of people looking for it at present.

I welcome the Bill. It is the first attempt I have seen in land legislation to do something for the congests in my county: believe it or not, we have them in substantial numbers. With the enactment of this Bill, I trust that part of County Wicklow will be declared a congested area and that when that is done, we can look forward to receiving the full benefit to be derived from this piece of legislation.

Mr. Kitt

Most of the western Deputies have spoken on this Bill. I waited most of yesterday and part of today to add my little contribution to this debate. I am proud that a Minister from the county of Michael Davitt and the county where the word "boycott" was coined introduced this revolutionary measure to Dáil Éireann and has given hope to the people in the west that their problem is nearing solution. The Minister has taken a bold step. I do not intend to go through this now, section by section, but I must say I am disappointed with some of the speeches by the western Deputies.

We have a song in the west called The West's Asleep. The first three or four verses are a bit sad but the last verse is a rousing one which says that the west is awake. If some of those Deputies want to go along the lines of the first three or four verses in that song and to say we are still asleep, I am glad to add my voice to the last verse and that we have a Minister who has shown with this Land Bill that the west is awake and that there is hope for the west.

I am glad to hear Deputies from every constituency welcome this Bill. They realise that the people in the west who are congested are the descendants of those who were driven there in the days of the Plantation. We know well that the descendants of those people are entitled to be brought back across the Shannon and to be migrated to the midlands. We are told that those who have already gone have made good farmers and were made welcome there. This Bill will ensure, I hope, that more of them will go and that the land that is left will bring congests up to an economic unit.

Since the Minister was appointed Minister for Lands, he has brought a breath of fresh air into the Land Commission. Even with legislation as it is at present, he has made regulations giving powers which in my constituency have brought a new pool of land into the Land Commission. Heretofore, if a farm were put up for sale in my constituency, the auctioneer did his best to sell it to anybody but the Land Commission. However, the Minister announced at the auctioneers' dinner that if they sold it to the Land Commission, he would give them the same commission, up to so many thousands of pounds, as they would get if they sold it to a private individual. I have seen positive proof, since that regulation was brought into effect, that a big pool of land in my parish and in adjoining parishes was taken by the Land Commission.

I had questions here in the Dáil about every holding that came up for sale, as advertised in the Connaught Tribune and the Tuam Herald. I took out the particulars of every one of them and sent them to the Land Commission. These have been inspected and the Land Commission, even under existing legislation, have purchased a lot of them. I would ask the Land Commission not to set these lands for any length of time but to divide them and to settle the uneconomic holders as soon as possible. Through the Minister's efforts and through the efforts of the Land Commission, a big pool of land has already been accumulated in my constituency. There were deputations to the Minister and there will be others this week or next week but in all these cases he has taken action and beneficial results have followed.

I agree with my colleague, Deputy Donnellan, about the ceiling that should be set to the number of acres a man should hold. When I made my maiden speech here in 1948, the late Mr. Frank Fahy was Ceann Comhairle. I advocated that very same policy. Mr. Fahy said he did not like to interrupt a man while he was making his maiden speech but that what I was advocating bordered on Communism. However, I was well briefed. I quoted a Papal Encyclical to prove my point. Since then, the late Pope John XXIII in his Encyclical Mater et Magistra—I have not the quotation now—said something to the effect that if it is for the common good the land should be used because it is different from any other type of wealth. I am not a theologian. The point is that it is not interfering with private property: it belongs to the Irish people. I believe something along those lines should be done.

I believe there should be some limit to the amount of land held and that a ceiling should be placed, at whatever height you like, on the amount of land a man may hold in this country. I can foresee that if you bring every farm up to the size the Minister has in mind— 40 or 45 acres of good land—people will die out or will not marry, and so on, and you will have one man in a village like the landlord of old because by buying up three or four 45-acres, he will become a new landlord. That is the trouble and that is what is happening in some of our parishes and places today. I do not intend to go into this in detail.

I complimented the Minister on the introduction of this Bill. I congratulate him and hope it will get a speedy passage through this House and through the Seanad, that it will soon become law and that we shall see beneficial results accrue from it.

Minister for Lands (Mr. Moran)

I am very happy about the reception this Bill has received in general from all sides of the House. I am particularly happy about the thoughtful speech by the Leader of the main Opposition. I believe that the fears expressed by him are unfounded and that when I deal with them, as I propose to do in detail tonight, he will be reassured about the legal effect of section 27. He appears to accept the provisions of section 13 as being fair and reasonable. Yet, this is the section about which such a song and dance was made last night by some Deputies, Deputies who either did not read the Bill or who, having read it, failed to understand it, or else set out on a deliberate campaign of misrepresentation to frighten the landowners of Ireland as to the contents of the Bill and its objectives.

Debate adjourned.