Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 5 Mar 1964

Vol. 208 No. 3

Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Land Bill, 1963—Committee Stage (Resumed).

Question proposed: "That section 4 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

The House failed to amend this section a short time ago. It deals with the making of an order declaring a district to be a congested district. This is probably one of the most important sections of the Bill. It gives the Minister for Lands power, which no other Minister for Lands has had, to declare such other area a congested area by means of an order. The declaring of any area to be a congested district for the purpose of this Bill is vesting extraordinary powers in the Minister.

I should like to hear from the Minister in very plain language the circumstances which will influence him in the making of an order declaring any county or area a congested district. Will the Minister be influenced by the congestion that really exists in regard to the size of holdings and, if so, what pattern will he follow? Will he have in mind the size of the holdings by acreage or will he have in mind the rateable valuation of the holdings in any particular locality. Again, will the Minister take into consideration the number of families who may be living on a number of holdings in a particular district? Will he take into consideration the numbers of the members of each family who derive their livelihood from the land on which they reside in respect of an order to make any part of a county a congested area?

It is well known that in every county in Ireland there are what we can describe as pockets of congestion. Does that mean that, in accordance with the recommendations made by the NFA, any legislation dealing with this land problem should apply to the whole of the country? That most certainly is a very commonsense approach.

With congested districts in every county, why not leave it at that and allow this Bill to relate to the whole State, without picking out parts because we have already agreed that there are parts of every county in Ireland today that can be described as congested?

Take, for example, the county of Laois. There is no part of the county of Laois that cannot be described as a congested district. The same remarks would refer to the county of Offaly if all the bogland were excluded. A great deal of bogland there is being put to very good and proper use but, with the number of families living on the existing holdings, it most certainly can be described as a congested district. Then we have Monaghan and Wicklow. You could describe all of County Wicklow as congested. If we exclude the congested districts and take the mountain range away completely, we must agree that there is also congestion in the remaining part of the county. The congestion in Wicklow, Monaghan and the midlands will not get the benefits of this Bill. Why that is so I cannot understand.

That is why I should like to hear from the Minister what machinery is at his disposal to advise him about the method of making an order to declare any county or district a congested district. There is no provision that the order shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas and I feel that the Houses should at least be notified that it is the Minister's intention to make an order declaring a county or part of a county a congested district. It is of the greatest importance that the Minister should be liberal in his method of dealing with this matter. I cannot see that the Minister has any good reason for not placing notice of his intention to declare a district a congested district on the Table of each House.

We can see that the section deals with congested districts for the purposes of the Act in regard to "a county or portion of a county specified in the Second Schedule of this Act". If we turn to the Second Schedule, we find that it embraces Donegal, Galway, Kerry, Leitrim, Mayo, Roscommon, Sligo and parts of County Clare and of West Cork. All those areas were declared congested districts in 1909. Surely the Minister has at his disposal —and if he has, I hope he will convey them to the House—details of what progress has been made since 1909 in regard to the relief of congestion in those areas that were congested districts in 1909. Are they still in the same congested condition in 1964 as they were in 1909? If they are, it does not speak well for the volume of work undertaken by the Land Commission in the years past.

It is about time there was a complete recasting or redrafting of the whole congestion situation. I am not advocating that any area referred to in the Second Schedule should be excluded from the list of congested districts. My argument is that the list does not go far enough and that there are other areas equally as congested as those referred to which are not included because they were not described as congested districts in 1909. I would ask the Minister if the congestion in Roscommon or Sligo is not equally as serious as in Monaghan where you have so many smallholders and great pockets of congestion throughout the entire county. Those parts of Wicklow not within reach of the mountain range which goes down through the county, the portion that is convenient to Carlow, which would include the Shillelagh district near Bunclody which is in Wexford, could safely be described as congested districts.

I should like to know from the Minister what recommendations are before him already and what will influence him in regard to the making of those new congested districts. Clause (b) states: "Such other area as may from time to time be declared by order of the Minister to be a congested area". Subsection (2) states: "The Minister shall have regard to the size of the holdings, the quality of the land and the type or types of farming carried out in the area to be declared a congested area". The Minister could go much further in his explanation about the approach he proposes to make in the event of this section being passed as it stands.

In regard to the reference to the quality of the land, does it mean that in an area in which you have all good land the Minister may fail to make an order declaring the district to be a congested district because it is all good quality land, even though there may be great congestion there? On the other hand, there may be a district in which the land may not be of superior quality but there may not be sufficient families in the area and he can establish a case that there is not any great general demand for land in that district. Will that be a means by which he will not declare the district to be a congested district?

The Minister might feel that to include the whole county might be embracing too much but I cannot see how it would be when whole counties were described as congested districts in 1909. I feel it might be better if he did it on a county basis rather than on the basis of electoral divisions. If one looks again at the Second Schedule in regard to West Cork, comprising Bantry, Castletown, Schull and Skibbereen, one feels that the entire constituency of West Cork could safely be described as a congested district. In addition, the entire county of Clare could be so described, despite the fact that the Second Schedule relates only to certain rural districts.

I should like the Minister to give us some more information particularly in regard to why he does not favour laying the orders before the Houses and giving Deputies and Senators notice of his intention. I would go further and suggest that the county committees of agriculture in the counties concerned should also be notified of the Minister's intention to declare any particular area a congested area.

We see in subsection (3) that the Minister may by order "amend or revoke an order under subsection (1) of this section"; that is to say, an area may be declared congested no longer by the Minister and those residing in the district will not be given the benefits which may be available to the congested districts. The Minister should also notify in advance the public representatives in an area of his intention to make an order declaring a district a congested district or his intention to revoke that order and so have the district declared as one coming within the scope of the congested areas.

Lastly, may I say that the provisions of section 4 which vest any Minister for Lands with the power of declaring any area to be a congested district are provisions which this House ought to examine very carefully. If the Land Commission, as a body, were to declare certain areas to be congested areas after full examination and consideration of the circumstances, having regard to the quality of the land, the number of families on the land and the type of farming carried on there would be something to say for it. Here we have the Minister taking power to declare any area a congested district and I think the section which gives him that power is open to political abuse.

I am not suggesting that the Minister is likely to fall into the temptation provided by this section but any Minister for Lands, no matter whom he may be, is likely to have pressure brought upon him by his local supporters to have such and such an area declared a congested district or not declared a congested district, as the case may be. That is putting political temptation in the way of the political head of the Department. For that reason, I think the House ought to be very slow in its consideration of this matter and should satisfy itself that if this power is vested in the Minister, no attempt will be made to make use of it for political purposes.

I feel that the Minister, in so far as his own term of office is concerned, should be strong in his guarantee that he will not be influenced by political considerations in declaring whether an area is to be a congested district or not. I view this matter with a certain amount of suspicion. I think it is a power we should consider very carefully before we vest it in the Minister and for that reason I advise the House to go very slowly.

Mr. McQuillan

Section 4 is a very important section because here we learn what powers the Minister proposes to take to himself, if permitted to do so by the House, to declare particular areas to be congested and it is important that we understand what the Minister means by "congestion". He gave a definition here last night of what a congested area or locality would be when he said it is a place "where the size of the farm does not measure up to a family farm".

The new target for a family farm is approximately 40 to 45 acres so that if, in future, we are going to talk of family farms as being holdings of that size, we can logically say that the farms that do not measure up to that figure could reasonably be described as congested holdings. If we apply this yardstick of a family farm of 40 to 45 acres of arable land, it means, on that basis, that from 75 to 80 per cent of the holdings in Ireland can in future be described as congested holdings. If that is the position that is to come about, we can see there is no hope whatever of the congestion problem being solved.

The Minister is taking power in section 4 to declare that certain counties or parts of counties can be declared to be congested areas. That is all right. We do not object to the idea of the Minister having these powers. We in the Labour Party think it is much better that these powers should be given to the Minister whom we can challenge here and who is responsible to the House than to have the Minister responsible declaring that he has no function in the matter and that it is a matter for the Land Commission or a statutory board and at the same time whispering to that statutory board what he would like them to do.

The Minister need have no worry about the Labour Party opposing him in the idea of giving him these powers but we want to clarify what he means by this family farm of 45 acres of arable land. Is it suggested now that it is to be put into the heads of all the small farmers of 33 acres of good land, whom the Minister described two years ago as good farmers, that they are congests and that they will be entitled to get more land? The danger of fixing a figure of 45 acres is that all the small farmers in the country whose holdings do not come up to that figure are going to feel that they have not sufficient land to give them a proper livelihood.

There is not land enough in the country to meet the demand that will be created if that mentality sets in. The Government's plan on this matter is based on what European trends will be in the 70's and 80's. They have come down on the side of those people who suggest that the average sized holding should be up to 45 acres. I think the way they have gone about this is most unwise because the change from the existing situation has been too sudden. I should like to quote what the Minister had to say about the matter at column 2218, volume 195, of the Official Report:

As Deputies will be aware, the aim of the Land Commission, in non-congested areas, has been to create a unit of 33 acres of first-class land or its equivalent in larger acreage of land of mixed quality. The view is held—and I certainly subscribe to it — that there is no reason why such a holding, properly worked and with the owner availing himself freely of the local agricultural advisory services, should not afford a decent livelihood to a man and his family.

That was the opinion of the Minister and his Department and, I presume, of his Government just two years ago with regard to the advantages of a holding of 33 acres of good land and how desirable that type of holding was. Indeed, he stressed that that was the type of holding desirable in the non-congested areas. He made that statement at a time when he was aware of the report of the inter-Departmental Committee on small farms and at a time when he was aware of the views expressed by Dr. Mansholt, and various other experts, with regard to the European situation and the position of the small farmer in European countries. If the Minister thought two years ago that a sound sized economic holding was 33 acres of good land in the non-congested areas, why is it the intention now in the congested areas to move above that altogether into the 40 to 45 acre holding?

Let us not forget that at the time the Minister spoke two years ago he had something to say also on the same occasion in relation to the congested areas at column 2219 of Volume 195. Having already pointed out that he saw no problem with regard to the 33-acre holding in the non-congested area, that he was satisfied that, as far as productivity was concerned and as far as the size of the holding was concerned, a farmer could get a reasonable livelihood, he had this to say about the holding in the congested area:

As I see it, however, the real problem exists in the size of holdings provided by the Land Commission in the congested areas.

The Minister's real problem, therefore, two years ago was the size of the holding provided by the Land Commission in the non-congested areas. All I have to say on that is that it was well time for some Minister to see the problem in regard to the size of the holding in the congested areas, but why now go above the figure in the congested area, namely 33 acres, which was considered ideal in the non-congested areas?

I do not want to go back too far on the debates in this House, but I should like to point out that on this question of the size of the holding in the congested area we had a serious discussion in this House way back in 1954 and the Minister came in here and brought in a map, placed it down in the hall where, I am sure, people recollect looking at it. On that map he showed the position in a certain county—I shall not name it—of the holdings before and after rearrangement. The purpose of the map was to demonstrate to the House the wonderful job that was being done in the congested areas with regard to improving the holdings; 84 small holdings were raised from a valuation of £5 to a valuation of £10. The lay-out of the holdings was improved. In other words, the valuation of the holdings was doubled.

My comments at the time were that it would have been a far better proposition to have made 42 holdings and have 42 decent-sized holdings with a valuation of approximately £20 on which the family would have the benefit of agricultural advisory services and credit thrown in. That suggestion was not thought suitable in 1954 and 1955. The small farmers were given another £5 valuation on top of the miserable one they had and told: "Now, boys, you should be satisfied".

What happened? These people on numerous occasions fought the plans of the Land Commission, saying the Land Commission were only making them worse off than they were. Two years ago the Minister said recipients of the many fragments of divided lands were still left in the position that they had to seek employment otherwise than on the land for three or four months of the year. We all know where they got it. Because of that, we had the start of the migration system to Britain. All these workers got into it as a mode of life. It has now become traditional and that type of traditional going to Britain for a number of months in the year was brought about by nothing but the Land Commission's activities in the western counties. Having driven the people out for three or four months of the year, it was only a short step for many of them to stay over for the 12 months.

What are we at now? We are not satisfied with enlarging their holdings. What the Minister described two years ago as a good holding, namely, 33 acres in a non-congested area, is now not good enough according to the Minister; we must now in the congested areas go higher altogether and give 45 acres to people who, up to two years ago, were being given £10 valuations in County Mayo, parts of Roscommon, Galway, and the congested areas. The land is just not there. In addition to that, and this is much more important at this stage, when the Land Commission were making these improvements, they never tied in with the Department of Agriculture to ensure that when John Murhpy, for example, was given his holding, the Department of Agriculture would then come into the picture and their advisory services would be brought to bear.

Mr. Moran

I do not want to interrupt, but do I understand the Deputy aright in thinking that he is asserting that the £10 valuation limit should still be kept in the west of Ireland and people outside that limit should not get any additional land? Is that what the Deputy is arguing?

Mr. McQuillan

Oh, no.

Mr. Moran

That is what the Deputy said, or that is how I interpret him.

Mr. McQuillan

What I am arguing is that the figure the Minister gave two years ago as being a suitable economic family farm in the non-congested area was 33 acres of good land. If he brought the miserable holdings of £10 valuation in the congested areas up to 33 acres, which he said was good enough two years ago in the non-congested areas, that would be a practical step and it would be a better way of going about solving the problem. Tied in with that should be advisory services and credit facilities for these farmers. Even the Minister's Taoiseach has now stated that one of the most desirable developments in Irish agriculture would be for the co-operative movement to come in at this stage and help the small farmers.

If you start talking about giving 45 acres to a farmer in the congested areas, you will only sow dissatisfaction because it just cannot be done and you will only succeed in making farmers dissatisfied with a reasonable holding of 33 acres, the policy of the Land Commission in the non-congested areas, and projects like Glencolumbkille, and other projects of a similar nature which are beginning to take root, will, in all probability, go by the board in the respective counties. The aim of these projects is to organise the small farmers into groups, get them to co-operate and work together so that, by unity and strength in numbers, they will be able to compete in the marketing of their goods and, in addition, the processing of their goods can take place in the locality.

The new idea of 40 to 45-acre holdings all round means that the farmer will say: "There is no need for me to co-operate with my neighbours at all." In addition to that, he will not even get the land unless the Government take the bull by the horns and say they will accept a later amendment we have here that a ceiling should be put on the amount of land any man may hold. You cannot have one without the other. You cannot give the 40-acre holding unless you ensure the land is available and you cannot ensure the land is available unless you exercise control over the amount of land to be held by anybody.

Under the guise of improving the lot of the small farmer, what is being created is a completely new land structure that will wipe out the small farmer in preparation for our admission to EEC. In every speech made by this Minister on lands and other matters, he has concentrated on the fact that Ireland will be a member of EEC by 1970 and that we must gear ourselves to change the structure of our farms so that we shall be ready for membership of EEC when the time comes. Two years ago, when he was speaking on the 33-acre holding, on how good it was and how suitable it was as a family farm in Ireland, he went on to point out at column 2218, volume 195, of the Official Report of 7th June, 1962:

In this connection also it may be worth mentioning that no less an authority than Dr. Mansholt is on record to the effect that more than two-thirds of the farms in the EEC are less than 25 acres in area.

That is the position the Minister himself quoted as regards European farms. Between the time that statement was made, less than two years ago, and today, the Department and the Government have been preparing the ground to get rid of these small 25- to 35-acre farms and amalgamate them into larger units. What happens when the small farms are turned into larger units? Where will the families on them be put? I do not know. I should like the Minister to tell me what will be done with them because he had this to say in his opening speech on the Land Bill at column 69, Volume 206, of the Official Report of 27th November, 1963:

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

What implication does it carry if it does not carry that? If 45-acre holdings are created all round the west of Ireland does it not mean that the other smallholders, if they are not gone already, will be taken away. Many of them could make a living on those holdings if they were given proper Government assistance by way of technical advice from the Department of Agriculture and also a training in the proper lines of agricultural production which would be suitable to the type of holdings they have.

I do not want to go into detail on that except to say we know that store cattle is one of the major props of the agricultural community in the west of Ireland on smallholdings and there is nothing as disastrous from the point of view of an economic living for the smallholders as to be depending on a couple of store cattle to sell at the occasional fair twice a year in the west of Ireland. The holdings are not big enough to keep the cattle from the calving stage. They are bought at a dear price and they are sold perhaps at a dear price but the profit is very small. That is the type of economy we want now to keep in operation in the west of Ireland.

The whole plan of this Government, right through its activities, is directed towards making this country a ranch, to make it completely a store cattle area. They are not interested in the development of the small farmer idea as practised, for instance, in the Glencolumbkille area and in the areas in Cork and Kerry where the Sugar Company is trying to keep the community interested in co-operative development.

There is nothing at the moment but a sneer and a jibe at the efforts of the small farmers who are trying to lift themselves up by their own shoelaces, where the instinct of self-preservation is so strong that they have banded together in the determination to survive together. Here we have a Government who say even to Glencolumbkille: "We cannot give you £25,000 for your industrial project."

Mr. Moran

What is the relevancy of industrial grants to section 4 of the Land Bill?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister has no responsibility for that.

Mr. Moran

Are we to continue to waste time on this codology?

Mr. McQuillan

This is not codology, as the Minister knows perfectly well. The Minister told us here last night that there were different standards 30, 40 and 50 years ago as to what an economic holding was. In fact I have quoted the Minister's own words two years ago that 33 acres of land was considered an economic holding in the non-congested areas. Have the Minister and the Government changed their view within two years as to what an economic holding should be or are they prepared to sacrifice the small farmer for admission to the Common Market?

It is worse than that because under subsection (2) of section 4 the Minister has power, when he is deciding what a congested area is, to decide what type or types of farming should be carried on in the area. Since when did the Minister for Lands and the Department of Lands become expert in the type of husbandry that should be carried out on a farm? Surely here is an instance where the Department of Lands and their technical services should operate in close unison with the Department of Agriculture. It should not be left to the decision of the Land Commission alone who over the years, I must say quite frankly, have just moved into localities in the west of Ireland like machines and carved up holdings. As the saying goes, they have been trying to keep all the dogs with them, giving a few acres to this man and that man in the hope that they will keep quiet but giving none of them an economic holding and making no provision whatever for the services to which they were entitled afterwards if they were to make a living in those areas.

That is only part of the picture. What we must examine very carefully in regard to congestion is the Minister's statement on the number of small farms which are vacant and the number which are described as derelict farms. I quote what he said in column 69, volume 206, of the Official Report of 27th November, 1963:

In the Small Farms Report, there is confirmation of the view that there are far too many vacant and underproductive farms in the country. These clearly should be taken up and used in the structural reform.

I have already spoken on structural reform. The meaning of structural reform is simply to wipe out the small farmer. That is the structural form.

Where are the small and unproductive holdings situated and why are they unproductive? Who made them unproductive? Is it not a fact that the Land Commission activities in many parts of the country have created further congestion and unproductiveness? I have given the figures, or, if I have not, I have them here to put them on record, that between 1931 and 1953 the Land Commission created some 13,000 new holdings with an average of 23 acres. Many of those holdings can be described as unproductive. Many of them are vacant. Whom are we to blame? Are we to blame the small congests in the west who had families and who said to themselves, "We cannot live here at the moment. Let us go to England until we make sufficient money to buy a bit of land in our own area." That is what happened. People went to England from these areas for that purpose and, in 99 per cent of cases, went reluctantly. Nobody denies the love that there is for the land amongst the people in rural areas. They went reluctantly but hoped that they would be able to return either in the very near or in the distant future and get another bit of land to enlarge the homestead.

Mr. Moran

On a point of order, may I point out that, in my opinion, the line of country that Deputy McQuillan is now pursuing is completely irrelevant to the provisions of section 4 of this Bill?

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

Is it in order for the Minister to tell the Chair his business? We have a Chair.

Mr. Moran

I am entitled to make a submission, the same as any other Deputy.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister is as entitled as any other Deputy to make a point of order. Section 4 defines "congested area" for the purposes of sections 5 and 7 and the debate should relate to that particular subject.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

It is very wide. If I were asked, I would say that Deputy McQuillan is in order.

Mr. McQuillan

I want to be fair to the Minister and fair all round. I hope the Minister is not endeavouring to short-circuit a debate on a matter that has been brewing for years. This is something we cannot discuss on an Estimate and here is a section on which it may be discussed.

Mr. Moran

So long as the Deputy makes his argument on the relevant section I have no objection. What I do object to is the Deputy's present argument which, in my submission, is completely irrelevant to this section.

Mr. McQuillan

I want to make it clear to the Minister that this comes under what congestion means. The Minister is taking power to declare any area a congested area. If he then declares an area to be a congested area certain provisions of this Bill will then apply. I am coming to them, if the Minister will have patience. I pointed out that a number of holdings are vacated in the west of Ireland. Is the aim of this Bill, in section 4, to penalise those people who were driven out by economic necessity? Will the Minister get the land he needs to create farms of 45 acres from the small unfortunate migrants who had to leave but who hope to return, or will the Minister get the land by declaring any area a congested area and by taking land in other parts of the country belonging to the racegoer and the waster and the man who is setting large tracts in conacre?

Mr. Moran

A Leas-Cheann Comhairle, again with due respect to you, I would submit that the congested areas are already in this Bill. The Deputy's contention about vacant holdings has nothing whatever to do with section 4. This is an enabling section, to enable the Minister to declare areas outside the specified congested areas to be congested areas and the Deputy's argument for the last quarter of an hour has had nothing whatever to do with the powers sought by me in this section.

Mr. McQuillan

I want to continue after that Ministerial eruption or interruption—I do not know which. The position is that in the congested areas contained in the Schedule there is quite a number of the small farms to which I have referred and to which the Minister referred and I shall now refer to the Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee on the Problems of Small Western Farms. At page 12, paragraph 11 of that Report, the Committee have this to to say under the heading Vacated Holdings:

The problem of these holdings seems to be a growing one as migration gradually develops into emigration. At present wholly let holdings amount to some 10 per cent on average in many western counties.... In some of these cases the original family still lives on the holding but for one reason or another is not in a position to work the land. In many of these cases, however, the owners have emigrated. The emigrants understandably hope to return some day and wish to retain the house and holding and will temporarily let it to neighbours or friends rather than sell it.

This is the land the Minister now hopes to acquire under section 4. I challenge him to say if I am right or wrong.

Mr. Moran

I again say that this is completely irrelevant to section 4. It has nothing to do with section 4, which provides power for the Minister to declare a new area outside the congested areas to be a congested area. If the Deputy wants to pursue this line of country and waste time, that is all right. We will be going over all this again on other sections but, in my respectful submission to you, Sir, this business about the Small Western Farms Committee's Report and what the Deputy has been saying for the last half hour is completely irrelevant to the provisions of section 4.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Does the Minister submit that Deputy McQuillan is not in order in mentioning the size of farms in the congested areas mentioned in section 4?

Mr. Moran

I submit that the deserted holdings or other matters referred to and the Small Western Farms Committee's Report on vacated holdings have nothing whatever to do with section 4 and that they are out of order.

Mr. McQuillan

What is section 4? The Minister should not be so touchy. I do not want to be crossing swords with the Minister on this at all.

Mr. Moran

Neither do I but I do not want to waste time.

Mr. McQuillan

I suggest that the Minister should be patient. I want to be fair on this question to the Minister because my fear and the fear of Deputies who represent the small farmers in what are now described as congested areas is that the unfortunates who are left in those areas, and those who are at the moment, we shall say, migrants, will lose their land and I want the Minister, under subsection (2) of section 4, to say what is his intention about acquiring the land for the relief of the congestion to which I have referred.

The Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee on the Problems of the Small Western Farmer emphasises that these vacant holdings to which I have referred are mainly in the west of Ireland. Terms of this Bill and this section are aimed at the West of Ireland. Where I think the Minister and the inter-Departmental Committee are wrong is in the overall picture of where the holdings are vacated and where the good land is wasted. I would refer the Minister to Appendix D of the inter-Departmental Committee's Report. We find there that in the eastern group, what they describe as the east and midland region, 10.4 per cent of the holdings are either wholly or partly let whereas in the West of Ireland, that is the North and West region the figure is 10.5 per cent. We should remember that 10.4 per cent in the midlands represents a far greater acreage and better land than the 10.5 per cent in the West. I do not understand why this interdepartmental committee has harped on the fact that in many cases in the West of Ireland the letting of holdings amounts to some 10 per cent on the average. Why do they not mention that in the midlands the average is 10 per cent also. I want to ask the Minister who is letting the land in the midlands? Do I have to quote the Minister himself when he made his famous speech before the society two years ago in which he said he would get after the boyos in the midlands who were setting their land, the ranchers, the con-acre men and the men who spent their time going to races.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Surely that does not arise on section 4, which deals with the congested areas?

Mr. McQuillan

The fact is that the land which the Minister hopes to give to people is not available in the congested areas and this Bill will not enlarge those areas where the Minister wants to get the land. The land is available in the midlands, as I have quoted, but no provision is being made to move into it.

Mr. Donegan

Is this on the halving of the annuities?

Mr. McQuillan

No, instead of that.

Mr. Donegan

In the congested areas, the annuities are halved — is that your case?

Mr. McQuillan

I do not think the Deputy is listening.

Mr. Donegan

I am listening. The point I am making is that if the Minister declares an area to be a congested area, the annuities are halved. Is it suggested that it would be improper to declare a place a congested area? Is it that the Deputy wants to see certain places where the migrants would get land in the east and midlands would get their annuities halved?

Mr. McQuillan

I do not think the Deputy was listening. I hope there is no other Deputy in cloudland like Deputy Donegan.

Mr. Donegan

I cannot understand it.

Mr. McQuillan

The Minister last night defined congestion on the basis that a congested area is an area where a holding itself would not measure up to the family-size farm. The new family-size farm is 40-45 acres. Up to two years ago in the non-congested areas the Minister said that 33 acres was an economic farm. At that time they were giving only 15 to 20 acres altogether in the West of Ireland. Now the sudden change of policy is that instead of saying: "In the west of Ireland, we are raising the standard of holdings up to what it is in the non-congested areas," they have moved away ahead of that figure to 40-45 acres. I am trying to find out where the Minister is going to get that land in the congested areas. I am sorry if I did not make it clear. I want the Minister to know that we shall not allow an injustice to be perpetrated on smallholders who, through no fault of their own, have been victimised in the past or, shall I say, let down by various Governments. It is not this Minister alone. I shall not name the others but there were many since the time I began to read what took place in this House, from 1933 on.

When the Minister is now seeking to change—shall I put it this way, if he is touchy—to delude the farmers that there is a 45-acre farm around the corner for them in the congested areas, that is treating them in the same way as unfortunate animals are treated before slaughter when they are brought to a different locality away from where the slaughter is taking place so that they do not see their neighbours slaughtered. What will happen to the farmers? They will satisfy the very small men who, in the Minister's own words have been making a good living on their smallholdings. The Minister is on record as saying two years ago at column 2218 of volume 195:

Indeed, it is a remarkable thing that most of the prizewinners in competitions sponsored by farming organisations come from holdings of this size or even less.

That is the 33 acre holding of only two years ago. Now he has changed his mind in a period of two years. If this were a question of increasing the turnover tax from 2½ to three per cent we would not mind but people do not change their minds quickly on fundamental matters like the size of a holding or what is an economic farm. If the aim is, as I believe to get this country big-minded, then everything must be big and we must get into big business so far as farming is concerned.

I could take up the whole of this debate with the evidence of men who are described as experts on the output of small farms and the results of farming operations on small and medium sized farms in comparison with larger farms and we would find that the output, employment, and everything is much greater on the small and medium -sized farms. That is evidence we must accept from experts and if we were to think logically ourselves, we would admit that a small farmer must work and must produce to the maximum because he must do so to keep going.

The Minister was satisfied that 33 acres of good land was all right two years ago. Now he says they are going to make that 40-45 acres. I have to tell my constituents—so will every other Deputy—what this Bill means and if I am asked this week-end by a group of farmers, who say there is a farm of 100 acres available, "will the Land Commission take that over?", I shall say, "I do not know; I shall make representations on your behalf." We find the land is not being taken over and the farmers then say: "Where is the 45-acre holding that is to come to us?"

Will the Minister say if this is to be a practical proposition? Is it not a fact that this section itself will not bring about any change so far as the small farmer is concerned of a beneficial nature and will instead bring about his downfall? I do not think it would be fair to go into too much detail on the Common Market but the Minister himself has harped upon it. In his opening statement at column 67 dealing with what he described as the "new deal" for small farmers he says:

In doing so, we had in mind the necessity of carrying out much of the ground-work of reform before the anticipated participation of this country in the Common Market. The fact that there has been a delay about our entry, however, merely means that, in so far as the structural reform is concerned, we must make the fullest possible use of the breathing space thus afforded.

If words mean anything "structural reform" means one thing and alteration on the size of holdings, so far as the small farmer is concerned, is wiping out the reference to preparation for admission to EEC and the time available now as a breathing space is the time the Minister wants in order to carry out that policy of decimating the small farmers. This idea of 45-acre holdings does not carry with it any implication of deliberately reducing the number of persons on the land. I want the Minister to answer that now, if he proposes to comment on what I have said.

Sir Anthony Esmonde

The mistake the Minister has made in this section and what will lead to wide controversy is in defining geographically what a congested area is. Coming from an area which is not one of those specified here, one gets the impression that in effect, what will be enacted here is a provision to make structural alterations in the whole background of holdings in the west of Ireland at the expense of other parts of the country.

I do not know if the Minister is aware of the fact that this Bill has led to considerable confusion among the farming community, probably more so than any previous legislation dealing with land economics. There is a widespread feeling prevalent among smallholders that the Minister is introducing legislation whereby he will seize all the big farms and divide them up for the benefit of the small farmers.

I am being constantly approached and asked if the Land Commission will take over such and such a farm for division among the smallholders in the area. I say I have no information about it and I am then pressed to say the Minister is not introducing in this Bill a provision to seize land for that purpose. I am forced to say this is intended for the west alone, for dealing with the land problem there where there is such large emigration because the people have been unable to support themselves on the miserable holdings they have been working.

It becomes necessary to draw attention to the fact that the Minister in this section is shaping his policy on the lines of structural alterations that have been suggested throughout Europe, and I do not think we can reasonably discuss this section except in the background of what is being done in Europe, because it is on that the Minister is basing this section.

Briefly, the structural alterations in Europe have been decided on because the authorities there believe the standard of living on the land is not as good as it is in industry and in order to make economic holdings they are creating bigger farms and encouraging people to leave the land. That is where the Minister and his advisers have slipped up in this legislation. Section 4 is leading to such controversy because its intent is not clear.

One interpretation of it is that the Minister will take the smallholders, not necessarily in his own constituency but in the counties mentioned in Schedule D, and give them the opportunity of buying land, thus conferring on them advantages over and above their brethren in other areas. We must acknowledge the fact that there are congested areas everywhere in this country. The Minister may reply that he has embodied under subsection (1) (b) of this section provision whereby he can declare other districts to be congested areas.

In a way, I do not see anything wrong with that, but the mistake the Minister has made is in trying to delimit geographically congested areas. That is why Schedule D does not make sense to me. I do not live in any of those counties and therefore have not first-hand knowledge of farming in them. Take Galway, perhaps a county I know better than the others. There is land there, particularly in East Galway, richer than a great deal of the land in Leinster and almost as rich as one would find in Munster. Admittedly there are large areas of County Galway where there are very poor holdings.

As against that, one could argue that there is in the constituency of Deputy Flanagan, Laois-Offaly, particularly beside the Bog of Allen which runs through the centre of Ireland, many small, uneconomic holdings. It is the same in the extreme north of my constituency, on the borders of Wicklow, where many farmers live on farms of six, seven and eight acres. If it were the Minister's intention to introduce a Bill aimed at creating general economic conditions on the land, he ought to have brought it before the House in a different form.

The Minister will find that a great deal of the controversy arising from this section is because he has endeavoured to fix specified areas as congested areas. I am not very clear myself, and I do not think anyone has been able to extract from the Minister what a congested area is exactly. Taking a reasonable view, I would say a congested area is one in which you have a group of small farmers, maybe two or three or even a dozen, who are living on uneconomic holdings. I submit there is not a single county in Ireland, to the best of my knowledge, which does not boast such a congested area.

Therefore, I suggest the Minister is making a great mistake in presenting this section in its present form. I presume that whoever advised him or drafted it did so on the basis of establishing here a structure on the lines attempted by the European Economic Community countries where the circumstances are totally different. You cannot here attempt structural alterations in farming simply by introducing legislation on land without an alternative, well thought out general economic policy as well.

It is no use plucking a whole lot of people off the land in the west of Ireland and dumping them in the east, in Deputy Donegan's constituency in Louth or in mine in Wexford. We already have problems of our own: several people in our counties will still be needing land after every acre available there at the moment is divided.

A lot depends on what the Government regard as an economic holding. Do they base their definition on acreage or on the fertility of the land itself? The Minister will see this is a very complicated, obtuse problem. Section 4, as it stands, gives certain areas priority over other areas. At least I thought that to be the case but having heard Deputy McQuillan's viewpoint it seems to me the Minister is not conferring any benefit on these areas at all. In framing the section in this form, the Minister has succeeded in annoying the people in the west of Ireland and in creating the impression among the people in the east and in Munster that they will all get fine economic holdings. If the Minister could take my criticism as constructive criticism. I am only telling him what my constituents have told me, and I agree with them. He has only succeeded in annoying everybody. He has created the impression that this is something new in land reform.

I suggest to the Minister, with all courtesy, that an attempt to deal with land reform and to deal with structural alterations on the basis of what they are doing in Europe, in America and in other parts of the world, must be tied in with the overall picture of taking people off the land. If you take people off the land, you have to have something into which to put them. It can be argued until the cows come home that this State is in a position to settle all the uneconomic holders and congests in this country, but we cannot do it because we have not got the land. That is the reason why so many people are speaking on this Bill and speaking at length to try to express their opinions.

There is something wrong with the draft as it is. I am not an expert on land reform or land law. I can only give my opinion from the practical point of view of a Deputy for my area. I think it is a mistake to try to define a congested district geographically. That is the major thing wrong with this section and the Minister should seriously consider it.

Mr. Carter

No doubt Deputy Esmonde has a point in what he says, but there is this much to be said for what the Minister is trying to do. The Minister has a precedent established for him in the 1909 Land Act, whereby the old Congested Districts Board had some measurement of the economy of the small farmer. I could rightly argue that part of my county, the lower half, should be included as a congested district. As Deputy Esmonde said, it is indeed very difficult to define a congested district. But we all know that the usual yardstick is the rateable valuation if one takes into account the worth of the land as an agricultural holding.

I think the Minister more or less accepted the figure given in the House that we have approximately 200,000 purely agricultural holdings. Various figures have been given, but if we take 90,000 of that number as representing congests living solely by farming, we have some idea of the number of claims which would be forthcoming under any Land Act. There is no doubt that any Minister for Lands will have a huge problem when he comes to deal with the claims of the various applicants.

Deputy McQuillan referred to this ideal of a 45-acre holding. I think the Minister is not so much insisting on a 45-acre holding but merely regarding it as a figure to be aimed at. Deputy Esmonde would be a much better judge of this than I am, but I do not think they are aiming at an absolute figure in Europe either. I think the principle they accept there is that a family farm should be the ideal. I assume that is what the Minister for Lands had in mind when he came to deal with this matter and that that is what he is aiming at. If we could achieve the family farm status, it would be a great advance; but can we do it?

The query posed by Deputy Esmonde when he referred to the pool of land we have presents another problem. I have heard about this mythical pool of land in the midlands. I do not know of any large pool of land in the midlands which is not reasonably worked at the moment. We must look at this matter on the broad principle that land is a commodity which does not change very much except in the way it is worked. For that reason, we must expect we shall always have a pool of land moving around the commercial market. For one reason or another— I do not want to go into detail—you will have a farmer's dependents—his widow or young family—depending on a living from the land. But the fact remains that that pool of land will still be on the commercial market. Any Minister will have difficulty when it comes to competing on the open market for the purchase of land for the creation of migrant holdings or for the re-arrangement of holdings.

If we had spare land in Westmeath or Longford in the morning, I would look with disfavour on bringing in people from the west of Ireland and planking them down beside congests in my county. That is where Deputy Esmonde's point arises. It is very hard to define congests.

Mr. McQuillan

The Minister will not include you in the area, so.

Mr. Carter

We were included in the Undeveloped Areas Act. I assume the Minister for Lands would adopt the same basis as the Minister for Industry and Commerce did in that case.

Mr. Moran

I will exclude Roscommon.

Mr. Tully

It would want to do the Deputy more good than the other one did.

Mr. Carter

That is a matter for argument. The point must be made in defence of the Minister that he is not insisting on a 45-acre holding but that he regards that as the ideal to be aimed at. We can all agree that, if we could achieve that, it would be the family unit. That is the ideal which is being aimed at, not merely in Europe but elsewhere also.

Mr. Tully

I am inclined to agree with a lot of what Deputy Carter said. He repeated what I have been saying for some time, but it did not find as much favour with the front bench as it did with him, unfortunately, or we might have a better situation.

Speaking in Dublin on 17th February, 1961, as reported in the Irish Times of the following day, the Minister said that there were 60,000 uneconomic holdings.

Mr. Carter

I think that was in the whole country.

Mr. Tully

Perhaps it would be better if I gave the full context. He said:

There were from 60,000 to 80,000 genuine small farmers still trying to derive a subsistence livelihood from uneconomic holdings.

He referred to the whole country.

Mr. Carter

Did he refer to any particular part of it?

Mr. Tully

No, the whole country. When a Minister talks in Dublin, he talks about the whole country, and when he is down the country, it is different: he confines his remarks to certain parts of the country. The Minister said:

He could see no reason why a compact Land Commission standard holding of 33 acres of good land could not be really rewarding, provided that it was intensively worked and that the allottee availed himself fully of the excellent advisory services operated by the county committees of agriculture.

I believe the Minister is doing the right thing in this section in taking unto the Minister for Lands the right to declare what is an economic holding, and what is a congested area. He is also taking to himself the right to decide areas which are now, or may be at some future time, declared congested districts. He can change them by order. Again, he is right in doing so.

I believe the proper person to have that authority is the Minister for Lands because, when he has that authority, he can be asked in the House—or his successors can be asked —questions about whether things are being done properly. If someone outside, such as the Land Commission, had that right the Minister could say he had no function in the matter. We are all very good at using political pressure when it suits ourselves. We all know there is an old trick which is used from time to time and which has been used on the Department of Lands as well as the Department of Posts and Telegraphs. If you know you cannot get something done by asking a Minister, you advise your greatest supporter to go to that Minister and say he has become a supporter of the Minister. That has happened again and again in every country of the world. I am quite sure that device has always been used.

The whole question of congested districts will be worked out and each place in turn will get its share of the Minister's benevolence. I am a little worried about the areas which can be declared congested. If I understood the Minister correctly, he suggested that areas with farms which are not of a size now considered a viable holding can be declared congested districts. If a district contains a number of farms which are less than 40 and 45 acres, the Minister will have the right to declare it a congested district. If that is so, the section would need a little tightening up, because the Minister could find himself in extreme difficulty. People who have got Land Commission farms and who are living in areas where there are anything between one and 100 farms none of which is 45 acres, will read this Bill. People always read a Bill that will affect them. They will envisage a further expansion of their holding. That could create quite a problem for the Minister and the Land Commission. Perhaps the Minister would have another look at it before he puts it into operation.

Subsection (2) of section 4 provides:

When making an order under subsection (1) of this section, the Minister shall have regard to the size of the holdings, the quality of the land and the type or types of farming carried on in the area to be declared a congested area.

Can we take it from that that if there are 100 farms of under £20 valuation around a farm of £300 to £400 valuation, as we very often find in Meath, the Minister will consider it a congested area, or would the Minister consider that because a large farm was situated in the middle it would be debarred from being considered a congested area, as compared with an area such as I have described earlier with 100 farms of £40 valuation? According to the Minister he can declare that area a congested district.

I should like to have those matters clarified. While we are all very anxious to take the Bill a stage further, I am sure the Minister was not at all worried that we did not rush to section 7 of the Bill. It might have caused a certain amount of embarrassment to everyone in the House if we had reached it before 5 o'clock this evening.

Mr. Donegan

I do not think it is a good thing that the Minister has power to declare an area a congested area. It would be better if the Lay Commissioners could do that because, apart from the pressure mentioned by Deputy Tully, there is also the fact that the Minister, no matter who he is, as well as every Minister of State—and I say this without casting a reflection on any Minister—is a political animal, and as such he will behave to a certain extent in a political way. The power that is being given to the Minister which leaves him open to political pressure from his own supporters, or indeed from the other side of the House, leaves him in the position that he can or cannot declare an area a congested area, and in so doing he must have regard to the effect it will have on the political fortunes of his Party, or any member of it. Therefore, it would have been better if the Minister had reserved for himself as well as the Land Commission, the right to make representations to the Lay Commissioners, and let them decide what was or was not a congested area.

I can understand Deputy McQuillan's anxiety about the size of the holdings. About 18 months ago, the Taoiseach said that if you devoted the same amount of money to land division and increased the size of the holdings, you could settle a lesser number of congests. After that speech, I think every member of the House was approached by constituents, or other people, who were worried about the situation. Old women were worried and thought that because they could not farm 18 or 20 acres, they would be taken from them. On the other side of the fence, there were people on uneconomic holdings who thought that suddenly a saving factor would be introduced, such as an exchange holding or a piece of land from a neighbour to bring the farms to an economic size. None of that will happen so long as the same amount of money is voted while the size of holdings goes up. I could not see it before but I can now see Deputy McQuillan's argument. However, there is no answer to that argument, none whatever.

Mr. Tully

There is—limit the size of holdings.

Mr. Donegan

If the Government have nailed their flag to the mast on the size of holdings, there is no answer to that mathematical argument. It means a lesser number of congests looked after and a lesser impact by the Land Commission on the settling-up of our land difficulties.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.