Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 11 Mar 1964

Vol. 208 No. 5

Land Bill, 1963—Committee Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed: "That section 5 stand part of the Bill".

Question put and agreed to.

NEW SECTION.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

I move amendment No. 11:

Before section 6 to insert a new section as follows:

"The Land Commission shall subdivide and allocate land acquired under the Land Purchase Acts within two years from the date of the acquisition thereof."

This amendment should be adopted by the Minister. The amendment restricts the Land Commission to a period of two years in which to subdivide and allocate the land. It is to be noted that the period of two years runs only from the time of acquisition, the date on which the final order of the Commission to acquire the land is made.

We have known cases in which the Land Commission have had land on hands for a considerable time. In many cases they acquire land and set it on the conacre system and in most cases the lettings run for three years. A person who takes land for a corn crop usually manures the ground. They have the benefit of the root crop and usually the benefit of the manured ground for a crop the following season. We often had complaints from smallholders who said that while a farm is conacred by the Land Commission at very high prices, the land is what they describe as "run out" by the time it is allocated. The purpose of my amendment is to ensure that the Land Commission may not have lands on hand indefinitely. I think the Minister will agree that we should have this new section which I feel is most desirable. At least, I ask the Minister to consider it.

Mr. McQuillan

Although there are a number of points of view on this, the main consideration is the necessity of allowing the Land Commission to acquire a sufficient pool of land in a locality to enable them to distribute the land in economic holdings. Nobody in this House has given the Land Commission more trouble than myself on the question of speeding up land division but there are times when it is most desirable that the Land Commission be allowed to retain land in order to build up the reserve or pool of land in a locality. There is justifiable criticism of the inexplicable delay on the part of the Commission in dividing land they have on hand in various areas. In reply to questions by Deputies, it has been disclosed that the Commission have had land on hand in some cases for ten and 15 years. There is no justification for that but I am afraid, when we specify two years, we may not allow the Commission enough time to do justice to a particular locality in regard to the pool of land which might be available in a period of three or four years.

It is hoped that one or two sections of this Bill, particularly sections 5 and 6 which are new sections and which we hope will be administered in an intelligent and very flexible way, will bring to the Land Commission a greater pool of land. Undoubtedly, difficulties will arise where old people are concerned on the question of title and perhaps on the question of persuading them that it is much better to give up land. That delay may be considerable and would not be the fault of the Land Commission. I do not see why, if the Land Commission have one farm available in a locality, they should be forced by law to divide that when perhaps in six months' time two or three farms would come into their hands in the same area which would enable them to do a reasonable job in solving the problems of the locality.

A great deal of justifiable criticism can be levelled at the Land Commission for delay. I know that this criticism also comes about because very often the land they hold is so let that its life and richness is drained away. Apparently, no care is exercised about the nourishing of the soil with the result that the land becomes very poor. That happens through constant lettings. Much of the criticism of the Land Commission over lettings is due to the fact that preference seems to be given to the wrong type of individual. There is justification for that criticism because in some areas it appears that the big man gets the preference in the letting of land.

An Ceann Comhairle

Does that arise on this amendment?

Mr. McQuillan

It does, because one of the reasons why——

An Ceann Comhairle

It seems to be concerned with the time factor, "within two years from the date of the acquisition thereof".

Mr. McQuillan

One of the reasons why that amendment is submitted is because land has been so constantly and so often let to people——

An Ceann Comhairle

It does not seem to me that the allottees are mentioned in this.

Mr. McQuillan

They are not mentioned. It is not possible to put everything into the amendment.

An Ceann Comhairle

The amendment says the land shall be allocated within two years but it does not say to whom. The Deputy may not decide to talk about allottees.

Mr. McQuillan

I am trying to put this to the Chair. The amendment states:

The Land Commission shall subdivide and allocate land acquired under the Land Purchase Acts within two years from the date of the acquisition thereof.

My case is that one of the reasons the amendment is put down is that the movers of the motion are aware that a great deal of criticism is being levelled at the Land Commission by potential allottees who are awaiting the division of a farm for a number of years and who, while awaiting, are not even getting the grazing on the land of that farm as the grazing is perhaps going to people outside the parish.

An Ceann Comhairle

The matter of allottees does not arise. The Deputy may disagree but he may not continue to discuss it.

Mr. McQuillan

The last thing I should like to do is to cross swords with the Chair on this but I want to make it clear that this is not just a matter of trimming the words or, if you like, suggesting that the broad issues involved in this can be dealt with on the basis that allottees are not mentioned.

An Ceann Comhairle

We must deal with it on the basis of what is in the amendment. I cannot allow the Deputy to discuss what is not in the amendment.

Mr. McQuillan

If you hear me, I shall argue on the rules of procedure——

An Ceann Comhairle

I shall not allow it.

Mr. McQuillan

If you want to make a ruling, go and make it. Go and make it out of pure pig iron.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy must desist. He must be relevant. The Deputy will not be abusive.

Mr. McQuillan

I cannot help it when I am treated in such a fashion by you.

Mr. Moran

Surely this is not in order?

An Ceann Comhairle

I am treating the Deputy as I treat every Deputy in relation to relevancy. I am telling him definitely that allottees do not arise on this amendment. It is only the time factor.

Mr. McQuillan

I am telling you——

An Ceann Comhairle

I am not arguing further with the Deputy. I shall not take abuse from the Deputy.

Mr. McQuillan

You need not take any abuse.

An Ceann Comhairle

No. The Deputy may deal with the time factor and with nothing else.

Mr. McQuillan

Who is getting abusive now? Who is throwing his weight about?

An Ceann Comhairle

I shall not argue further with the Deputy. The Deputy will do as the Chair says.

Mr. McQuillan

Yes, but the Chair will not act as a dictator.

An Ceann Comhairle

If there is any more abuse, the Deputy will leave the House.

Mr. McQuillan

The Deputy will leave the House anyway before he submits to stupidity and arrogance on the part of the Chair. A stupid, arrogant individual, that is all you have shown yourself to be—stupid, arrogant.

Deputy McQuillan withdrew from the Chamber.

Mr. Moran

This is fantastic. On the amendment, it is completely impracticable. There was never such a rule at law under the Land Acts and it could not possibly be carried out in practice. In fact, as a matter of policy, there is a standing instruction from me to the Land Commission that in any case where there is a delay of more than three years, it must be brought to my personal attention. It would be unrealistic to seek to deal with these cases in two years. Where migrants' holdings are being carved out, it is impossible to get buildings erected in two years. Quite often it takes very much longer.

At the present time, it is a very difficult matter to get buildings erected on these migrants' holdings. As well, I am sure the Deputy who moved the amendment would be the very first to complain if all the people within the mile limit were not approached by Land Commission officers to get particulars about allotments of land. The Deputy would be the very first to have a motion here if any estate were peremptorily divided without proper particulars being taken of people within a certain radius.

Under this also comes the question of boglands being acquired. In such cases, thousands of pounds expenditure would be involved before they could be made accessible to people with turbary rights. Roads would have to be built and there would have to be large drainage schemes before the boglands would be accessible to the tenants for whom they were intended. Again, if you had the Land Commission's hands tied in this way, it would be impossible for the Commission to carry on because they would be open to mandamus proceedings.

Let me make it clear that the Land Commission do not hold lands unnecessarily. They hold lands for the simple reason that in many cases they are not in a position to proceed with a scheme for their division. There is the position I referred to on another section in regard to rundale estates where rearrangement schemes are involved. Such schemes entail agreement of all those concerned—swopping of intermixed lands for new lands.

In many cases some of the lands left are in fact the hard core of the congested districts where the Land Commission could not achieve agreement throughout the years. In some such cases, the Land Commission have had lands in their hands for periods of up to 20 years because they could not proceed, being unable to get the co-operation of the people in regard to swopping and exchange.

Deputies can imagine what the position would be if in instances of that kind the Land Commission's hands were tied as suggested in the amendment. There is also the position where the Land Commission get a portion of land or a holding and they have earmarked a couple more holdings in the same area for acquisition. I answered a question today in which these circumstances arose. The Land Commission acquired 45 acres in a certain district and there are proceedings pending for the acquisition of a further 100 odd acres in the same district. The Land Commission are awaiting the outcome of these proceedings because if they can get the extra 100 acres, they will be in a position to initiate a more workable division scheme. For all those reasons, this amendment, which would tie the Land Commission's hands completely, is both impracticable and unworkable and, I suggest to the House, should be rejected out of hand.

Mr. Tully

When making his case, the Minister avoided, I would say deliberately, cases which would come within the scope of the amendment if it were passed. I have great sympathy for the mover of the amendment because I feel he was trying to do something which he believes should be done. The Minister's explanation, and that of Deputy McQuillan before he left the House, showed that there are cases in which the two year limit might interfere with the work of the Land Commission.

For that reason, I feel we could not support the amendment as it stands, but surely the Minister is more aware than anybody else of the large Meath-estates in my constituency that have been in the possession of the Land Commission, not for three years but for six, seven and even eight years. As far as the local people are concerned, there is no reason why these estates have not been divided.

They were estates which ran up to 600, 700, 800 or 900 acres. If there had been any question of title involved, then this amendment would have covered it because it says: "within two years from the date of the acquisition thereof". They were estates taken over but for some extraordinary reason they were retained by the Land Commission. One of them was the Crowley Estate in Trim. It was taken over in 1957 and portion of it has been divided recently. When I put down a question and accused the Land Commission of holding on to those estates in order to make money on them by letting them on the 11-months system, the Minister said it was all nonsense, that in fact the Land Commission were losing money. It seems extraordinary that the Land Commission should voluntarily lose money on those estates continuously over periods of six, seven and eight years.

If it were a question of rearrangement, as would arise in rundale areas, I could understand the necessity for a lengthy delay in division or allocation, but in the case of the estates I have mentioned, there was no reason for the delays. One of the biggest complaints about the disposition of those estates, and one of the things the Minister must look at very closely if he is to deal effectively with land rearrangement, is the fact that estates have been taken from land owners because they did not work them properly.

They were taken over by the Land Commission who proceeded, over a period of as long as seven years to my knowledge, to set them on the 11-months system. It is pretty hard to try to make anyone understand that what is wrong for a private individual to do is right for the Land Commission to do. There are instances of estates where workmen were disemployed as a result of the Land Commission taking over.

I wonder what the Minister would say if he were in the position of one of those workmen, looking at the Land Commission setting the land on which he formerly got a week's wages, setting it over the years, while he either looked for employment elsewhere or signed at the local labour exchange. I think the Minister just cannot waive the arguments we have made in favour of this amendment by saying: "There are many complications for the small farmers; they are involved in redivision. We have to take our time and we have not been able to build houses".

No matter what the Minister says, the facts are that estates have been over-held. One of the main reasons— it is not a reason but an excuse—being given by the Land Commission for over-holding the estates is that where there are a lot of recent applications there is what they like to call local agitation. The Land Commission hold on to the estates until local people who are expecting to get portion of the estate get sick and tired of waiting.

The Minister should not allow that to happen. The Minister would be very well advised not alone to take over the estates and within the quickest possible time re-allocate them, but as well, let the people who apply for land know by return post, if possible, whether or not they are entitled to land. The Minister has made the argument here that we would be complaining if we knew that everybody who has applied within a mile distance of the estate was not visited. Of course we complain and of course it does no good for the applicants either.

The Minister is aware that on a number of occasions it has been brought to his notice that such people are not visited by the inspector. The Land Commission may make the argument that they knew they were not entitled to land. How do they know? Have they a crystal ball which tells them the people were not entitled to land? That is being used as an argument against this amendment—because of the fact we have to do these things we cannot divide the land within the period suggested in the amendment.

I have the greatest sympathy with Deputy O.J. Flanagan in the idea behind the amendment. The Minister may be correct in saying that in every case it would be wrong to tie it to a period of two years. But I think the Minister could, before this Bill becomes law, introduce an amendment which would cut the time limit to one which he considers suitable to the Land Commission and which would prevent the abuses which are occurring at the present time.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

I am afraid I cannot sincerely accept the Minister's statement and I regret he is not prepared to accept the amendment. I moved this amendment because of my own knowledge of the delays which exist in the Land Commission. I have been associated with the workings of the Land Commission during the 21 years I have been a member of this House. I find that the delays there in many cases have been very unreasonable and I do not accept for one moment the Minister's suggestion that the Land Commission could not possibly erect buildings and houses within a period of two years from the taking over of the full possession of the holding.

Here is a case, and according to my amendment, as Deputy Tully has correctly pointed out, the Land Commission shall subdivide and allocate land acquired under the Land Purchase Acts within two years from the date of acquisition thereof. That goes to show that by the time the Land Commission actually acquires the land they have already had rulings on title. They have already investigated the proper title, the legal formalities have been gone through and the transfer of the property has actually been effected.

Mr. Moran

That is not what the Deputy's amendment says. He says "from the date of the acquisition", and that is a different date.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

I think the Minister is rather confused.

Mr. Moran

Not a bit.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

From the date the Land Commission acquire the land. I quite agree that there may be exceptional cases. It might not be possible to have the land divided within the two year period, but in normal cases I fail to see why the inspectors cannot interview the applicants and cannot submit a report to the Land Commission and why the Land Commission cannot have a decision to allocate and divide land within a period of two years.

My experience of Land Commission inspectors is that not alone are they courteous but they are efficient in the discharge of their duties. Here we find that the Land Commission inspectors know exactly what the demand for land is before the Land Commission acquire the land. Otherwise the Land Commission might not have acquired the land on the report of the Land Commission inspector—that here we have a case of congestion prevailing in this area where we have X number of smallholders and it is on that the Land Commission acquire the land. Surely it is reasonable to put a fixed period, of, say, two years within which the Land Commission must have the land divided and allotted.

I know very well that there may be exceptional cases, as the Minister says. I quite agree that that might affect exchanges and resettlements. That could go on for years, waiting for some person who may not fall into line with the scheme. There may be very special circumstances where the Land Commission may not wish in any way to unduly press that certain applicants may have to leave the district to go elsewhere in order to effect suitable resettlement. There are exceptional cases in which it might not be done but in the normal run of things the Land Commission inspectors, most certainly the chief inspectors, know quite well the local circumstances when submitting their reports on which decisions are made by the Land Commission to acquire the land. An inspector also knows the number of small holdings in the area which need to be increased and he knows the family circumstances of every applicant for land in that area.

Therefore, having all that information, I still cannot understand why the Land Commission cannot, within a period of two years, finalise any one case, bearing in mind that before acquisition they already have that information in their records in the Land Commission. More particularly, information is available there which will be very helpful in assisting the Land Commission in relieving local congestion. In the case of granting relief to local congestion, it should be the policy of the Land Commission, it should be Government policy—and the Minister should so direct the Land Commission — that in the case of relieving local congestion no delay should normally occur.

When country people are asked to describe the Land Commission, the description they give it is that the Land Commission is a big body which moves very slowly. It has the name in the country of moving very slowly. As a matter of fact, it even beats the Board of Works in that respect. Now that we are modernising the land law such a provision should be included, if for no other purpose than to change the bad name the Land Commission have of putting matters on the long finger. I do not want to be critical of the Minister. He knows me long enough to know that I will not be intentionally critical.

Mr. Moran

It is the time of night for bedtime stories.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

The Minister has gone beyond the time for bedtime stories. If he cannot sleep within the next two years with a bit of ease, he will not need the assistance of bedtime stories.

Two years should be ample time for the Land Commission to conclude any deal and dispose of the land. Deputy Tully is right when he says that a temporary letting takes place after the Land Commission acquire the land. In some cases that has gone on for five or six years. We are faced with the position of the Land Commission acquiring land speedily but then having it set at very high prices. The Land Commission obtain record conacre prices, not because the local applicants can afford to take the land but because, as Deputy Tully pointed out, some big landowner who needs land comes along with his cheque book and outbids the local applicants, the congests and smallholders. This can be carried on, not for two seasons, but for three seasons; and I have known cases of the Land Commission setting land for a second three-year period. To set land for six years which is on the list for division is unreasonable. I put down this amendment to prevent the Land Commission from doing so.

Where land is required for allocation there should be no difficulty in finding suitable migrants, because there is a large number of them in all congested districts. They are already listed by the Land Commission. Most Deputies hear from them. They themselves do not mind getting a twopenny post-card, making their claims and addressing them to the Land Commission. No Department of State must receive a greater volume of correspondence from congests and applicants for land than the Land Commission. Therefore, in the case of land for the relief of congestion there should not be a two years' delay, because the information is already on record.

If a time limit is imposed, the Land Commission officials will face up to the new position and realise the urgency of the situation. I am not questioning the efficiency of the Land Commission inspectors. Nevertheless, there is nothing like tying up the matter in such a way that they will have a period of two years in which to complete any transaction. The Minister can say to them: "Now you have this holding turned over to you on such a date. It is your job to carry out the investigation and have the allocation made before such-and-such a date"—giving them a two-year period. If that is done, it will eliminate many of the unnecessary grievances in areas where the Land Commission are setting land which the local applicants cannot take in conacre because they cannot pay the higher prices.

I would ask the Minister to look at this again. He might consult with some of the senior officials of the Land Commission who have knowledge of what takes place at these conacre lettings. Some of the smallholders who afterwards get the land from the Land Commission have to pay up to £120 per season for conacre. Some of them have already bought out the land with the amount they had to pay for conacre. This can be remedied by the insertion of the new section I suggest in my amendment. I am not prepared to press the matter unduly, but I draw the attention of the House to the unreasonable delays which take place. The Minister does not satisfy me when he talks about the poor quality of the land or says that houses and buildings cannot be erected in that period. We are not dealing with houses and buildings; we are dealing with the allocation of the land. If the land were allocated, the buildings could go ahead, so long as the lands were in the possession of the applicants within two years. It is a reasonable case, and I ask the Minister to look at it again. Perhaps he may have some suggestions to make on the Report Stage?

Mr. Moran

The Deputy is withdrawing his amendment?

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

No, although I am sure it will be lost. Would the Minister have a look at it?

Mr. Moran

What is the use of pretending there is any practical merit in this amendment when I can point out the daftness of an amendment which suggests that land could be allotted in Kildare to a migrant from Kerry without building any kind of house on it for him?

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

I did not say any such thing. Do not twist what I said.

Mr. Moran

According to the Deputy, everybody knows the Land Commission officials are highly inefficient people who do no work and leave lands undivided. The cases cited here, particularly that by Deputy Tully, were exceptional cases. Speaking from memory, the Crowley lands were some of the best lands acquired. They were reserved to deal mainly with over-standard holdings, that is, to try to satisfy people with large holdings in the congested counties, to try to get them to migrate. In fact, they have been used for that purpose.

Deputy Tully was talking with his tongue in his cheek when he suggested that immediately any person wrote to the Land Commission asking for division, he should be told by return whether he was in or out. No Deputy in rural Ireland, unless in jocose mood, would make any such suggestion, particularly a Deputy who knows that in the vast majority of cases not alone must the people within the district be considered but that there are about 20 applicants to every three or four congests who have to be considered. In addition, invariably there are demands from the local GAA for facilities for a sports field, or from the local authority for a place to build labourers' cottages. All those matters have to be taken into consideration, and to suggest that could be done overnight is completely unrealistic.

If I saw any merit in the amendment, or in any amendment on similar lines, I would certainly consider it, but I do not see that I would be serving any useful purpose by undertaking to put in something on Report Stage that would completely hamstring the Land Commission in their day-to-day work. It would be completely impractical.

Mr. Tully

The Minister said I was talking with my tongue in my cheek. Surely the Minister will agree that it should be possible within eight years for an applicant for land to know whether he is entitled to get it? Sometimes the land is being divided before the applicant realises he is not getting it.

Mr. Moran

I am most anxious that the Land Commission should get rid of land as quickly as they possibly can, subject to the other matters I have mentioned. I have said before, and I repeat, that since I became Minister, I have given a direction that if they have land on hands for over three years from the date of acquisition, the matter is to be brought to my notice. Deputies have the ordinary procedure by way of motion or question to raise a case where they consider, from their local knowledge, that undue delay has occurred.

Mr. Tully

The Minister is very reasonable now, but I am sorry he was not so reasonable when I asked him a question. The answer he gave me on one occasion could hardly be termed polite. I am sure he will remember the occasion if he wants to do so. He should brush up his knowledge about the estate I mentioned because while I would not say that he was deliberately misleading, his information is not correct. After eight years, the land has been divided and most of it has gone to a local applicant. For that I am truly thankful. However, it does not arise on the amendment and I shall not pursue it.

If the Minister wishes me to do so after the recess, by way of question, I can give him a series of farms which have been in the possession of the Land Commission for more than three years in Meath. They have been let for that period, and apparently the Land Commission have no intention of dealing with them. If the Minister wants to do it that way, I shall be only too glad to oblige.

Mr. Moran

I should be glad to get particulars. I am sure there is some reason why they were not allocated.

Amendment put and declared lost.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Amendment No. 12 has been ruled out of order as tending to impose a charge on State funds.

NEW SECTION.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

I move amendment No. 13:

Before section 6 to insert a new section as follows:

"Where it is proven to the satisfaction of the Land Commissioners that a farmer or farm worker, even though he be landless, is a suitable person to acquire land either by long lease or credit purchase, he may receive equal consideration with other applicants to whom the present Land Acts apply."

I am sure there are cases that would come within the scope of this amendment which the Land Commission would be prepared to consider sympathetically. There are a number of farms let in conacre at present, have been in the past, and probably will be in the future, which might be leased by their owners to the Land Commission, who could in turn sublet them to farmers' sons or other deserving applicants.

There are a large number of farmers' sons who are prepared, financed and equipped to work land, and the only drawback is that they cannot get land. Now that the Land Commission are considering the establishment of a number of schemes, I suggest they should draw up a suitable scheme to deal with those cases. For example, there is the case of a widow with a young family. There are many such cases in rural Ireland. When her family are young, she finds it impossible to pay labour to work the land, and she has to set it in conacre until such time as her family grow up and are able to look after it. Such a person could very easily come to terms with the Land Commission and, in turn, they could sublet the farm to landless men, farmers' sons, or other deserving applicants who would work it profitably and give it back in good heart when their lease had expired. The land would then be in a much better condition than if it were let by the owner on the ordinary conacre system for a corresponding period.

I fail to understand why the Land Commission seem to look with disfavour on the question of leasing land or giving it to farmers' sons who may not have a holding of their own. The Land Commission would be well advised to give special consideration— whether in congested areas or not— to the just claims of farmers' sons who are very skilled, who have been working up-to-date, modern methods of agriculture, have attended various lectures, and are prepared to take advice from agricultural instructors as to how to get the best return from the land.

Most of our farmers' sons, most landless men, and farm workers who are closely connected with the land, are examining ways and means by which they can get the maximum return from the land. They are familiar with up-to-date methods of laying out the land to get increased production. It is a great pity the Land Commission do not co-operate to a greater extent with the type of person I have in mind. It should be within the bounds of possibility that every year the Land Commission would look after a number of such people. There can be as good people working on the land, with a knowledge of farming, who are familiar in every possible way with the land, its workings and its productions but they may not own land themselves. That is why my amendment to insert this new section asks the Land Commission to lease land or to give such people some consideration because at the present time this Bill in the absence of this new section does nothing whatsoever for such people.

I find that the agricultural worker and the landless man who has lived his life close to the land and on the land can give as good an account of himself on the land as those who are already in possession of holdings and I recommend that the Minister accept this amendment and agree to insert this new section. If this new section is inserted it will mean consideration for a number of landless men and a number of farmers' sons who are on the Land Commission list for land at the present time and who can never hope to be successful unless provision is made in this Bill for them to be successful. I feel that this is a case which will at least give considerable relief to the growing demand for land by farmers' sons and others to whom I have referred in the amendment.

Mr. Moran

This amendment, if accepted, would not give one rood of land to any landless man in this country as the Deputy well knows. The question of who is to get land in this country is solely a question of priorities for the Land Commission and Section 31 (1) of the Land Act, 1923, lists the persons or bodies who can benefit under resale schemes. It is always accepted that the landless men come under clause (f) of that subsection. Policy lays it down that the relief of congestion shall be the first concern of the Land Commission and they very properly give the bulk of the available land in allotments to congests. Therefore, if land is available in a particular area, the landless man can and does get consideration. I have said before that the 40 odd acres needed to satisfy just one landless person could be sufficient to advance four or maybe five existing smallholders in a congested area and to bring them up to the economic level. Deputy O.J. Flanagan would ask us to leave these congests in the mess they are in by providing land for landless men at their expense.

This amendment in a way is rather typical of Deputy O.J. Flanagan's reasoning to try to go a good distance of the road with every dog that turns. He was arguing earlier tonight in this House that it was completely unrealistic to talk about solving the congestion problem for the 60,000 land congests that are still there and suggested that this Bill was some form of bluff. Indeed, he said that if we got in the whole of the Six Counties uninhabited we could not make any impact on the land congestion problem under the statistics he quoted. How much less impact could we make if it were written into the law that landless men would be entitled to be considered on an equal basis with the congests for whom the whole land code has been devised down through the years. His proposal reads:

Before section 6 to insert a new section as follows:

Where it is proven to the satisfaction of the Land Commissioners that a farmer or farm worker, even though he be landless, is a suitable person to acquire land either by long lease or credit purchase, he may receive equal consideration with other applicants to whom the present Land Acts apply.

That is simply throwing the door wide open and is in direct conflict with the policy recommendations made by the people the Deputy is so fond of quoting in this House, the NFA, who have made recommendations on the order of priorities that people should get land in direct conflict with the Deputy's proposal here.

Under the existing law and as a matter of policy, the Land Commission are entitled under the particular section of the 1923 Land Act to which I have referred to give land to landless men if they in their wisdom think fit. But, land being a scarce commodity in the country, in order to try to deal with the problem we have, and the relief of congestion being the fundamental statutory duty of the Land Commission, the landless men must take their place in the queue when priorities are fixed. But if, as I said, in the division of any estate, having dealt with the congestion problem in the area, there is a case to be made for landless men the Land Commission are in full power under the existing law to deal with them or to allocate land to them. This is purely a question of policy. No such amendment as this is necessary for the purpose of giving land to landless men if the Land Commission so decide.

Mr. Tully

I agree with the Minister in the last statement he has made that no amendment is necessary to give land to landless men but since the amendment is down here to be debated I should like to point out a few facts to him which apparently have escaped him. The Constitution of this country guarantees equal rights and equal opportunities for all. But the Minister for Lands and the Land Commission have decided that they are the people who should judge on the equal rights and equal opportunities where land division is concerned. They have tried to make a type of third or fourth class citizen out of the person who, though he has been employed on land all his life, though he knows more about land than any congest who is brought into the midlands, is passed over.

The Minister is aware that one of his predecessors, a Fianna Fáil Minister for Lands, and the Land Commission in the mid-1930s gave quite a considerable number of farms to landless men and some of the best farmers in County Meath now are those landless men and their sons. Why the change took place I do not know. The Minister can tell us that the pool of land will not go around to everybody and that therefore it must be conserved for the congests. If the Minister for Lands and the Land Commission were getting hold of all the land which they could rightly acquire, and divided it, we could understand his being so careful about the people to whom he gave land. In view of the fact that they are not doing that, and that more land than would satisfy quite a large number of landless men who are applicants is being allowed to pass into other hands, I am sure the Minister's argument does not carry the weight which he would like to have it carry.

I do not know whether or not there is a pet hate in the Land Commission. I do not know whether or not the officials have a prayer which they say every morning: "I shall not facilitate a landless man in any way" because one of the really extraordinary things is that while the Land Commission inspectors visit all sorts of people and allocate from time to time farms to some really extraordinary people, for the past few years, with very few exceptions, the landless man is passed over.

Perhaps the Minister would like to tell the House how it is that somebody who lives in a congested area and who has only anything from a £2 valuation up—and a £2 valuation is a pretty small farm—may be given a full-sized farm even though his knowledge of farming may be almost nil and at the same time he will refuse to give any land at all to a landless man or a man of maybe £5 valuation in the outside areas that are not congested areas when a farm is being divided in the neighbourhood.

The Minister should change his policy because I believe the position has been reached that landless men are beginning to feel that there is some curse on them and that the Land Commission believe they are people who should not be allowed to exist in any area. The Minister should be very careful about handling this particular section. While the amendment goes much further than the points being discussed by the Minister or myself, he should have a good look at the situation where landless men are concerned and should if possible, and in many cases it is possible, give them a share of the land which is being divided.

We are all aware of the people who are brought from congested areas to look at land and who, having looked at it, decide, although it may be first-class land, that it is not what they want. If the Minister would take a chance on it, he could go to the vicinity of a farm which is being divided and interview some of the landless men and small farmers who live around that estate and hear some of the comments of people who come by bus and car to look at the land and then turn up their noses and depart and he could see whether or not the local people would be prepared to take the same land. I am sure the Minister must be aware that it is a grave hardship on people who have been dealing with agriculture all their lives, as small farmers, farmers' sons or farm workers. When a farm is being divided locally, they should receive more consideration than they are getting. In exceptional circumstances, they do get land but if they do, there is usually a reason which is not the reason I would give if I were recommending them for land to the Minister.

Mr. Moran

I do not think it necessary for me to go further into this matter of priorities. We have had it time and again on Estimates and different questions have been raised. I suppose we will have it for all time. Nobody on this side of the House has suggested at any time that there are not men who are not owners with a good knowledge of agriculture. Of course they are there and I have come across many of them and know of many of those who make their living by working land which they hold under conacre or letting agreements, from one end of the country to the other. Nobody has denied that these people are there. From the point of view of the common good, the job we have to tackle in regard to priorities must be recognised. The State is now providing a very substantial amount of money to try to deal with the congestion problem. I wonder would the Deputy who talks about farmers' sons who are landless ever argue that the taxpayer should also come to the aid of the shoemaker's son, for instance, to provide a living for him, or the small shopkeeper's son or the plasterer's son or all these other people's sons who have to be provided for in this life?

Mr. Tully

You do not make shoemakers out of congests.

Mr. Moran

This is the old argument being made by Deputies in some of these areas and which is a very popular argument against migrants coming in. It is naturally good politics for a Deputy living in the midlands to say that every mother's son from all over that area should get, as they say in the country, a bit of what is going, no matter what he is at. Deputy Tully invites me to consider the reaction of local landless men when they see migrants refusing to take land and to ask would the local people take it. Of course they would; they would need to be locked up in a lunatic asylum if they refused. Why would anybody not take a gift of this kind from the State if he could get it?

I know that the Deputy has to make this kind of case here but the people who come to these areas are surrendering their holdings in whatever part they leave. We cannot compulsorily migrate these people. We must get their agreement to accept the holdings being offered to them and they have the right to refuse the holding that is shown to them. In some cases the Deputy and others may suggest these people were very foolish in turning down some of the holdings offered to them. That may be so, but it is these people's own choice.

I do not for a moment accept the allegation by Deputy Tully, not for the first time, that many of these migrants have absolutely no knowledge of agriculture, coming from the places from which they come. I assert that the whole evidence is to the contrary and the quicker we can get it out of the Deputy's mind and out of other people's minds that every west of Ireland migrant is a Baluba who knows nothing about agriculture, the better for the country. I have had experience of dealing with these migrants and of getting the opinion of people in some midland towns who assured me of the progress made by these migrants. In many areas they have revolutionised the working system of the farms they have got and many of them have progressed very well from the comparatively small farms which they received by their own hard work to acquiring further land in the areas to which they have migrated.

Let me be quite clear on this amendment. As the law stands, the Land Commission are entitled, if they so wish, to give land to any landless man. The very purpose for which the old Congested Districts Board was founded was to deal with the relief of congestion. That is the fundamental reason for the Land Commission being in existence. It is the fundamental reason for these millions that have been voted to the Land Commission since the foundation of the State for the relief of congestion. Congests, because of their number, must be a first charge on the pool of land available.

This amendment is not necessary in order to provide land for landless men. Indeed, even if it were accepted, it would not be effective in providing land for landless men. The policy of the Land Commission is well known. It has been clearly laid down. I think it is wrong to encourage landless men into the belief that, except in very special circumstances, they will be entitled to participate in the division of land. On the division of estates, employees of long standing, who are considered suitable by the Land Commission, have been allocated holdings in some instances. It is also true that, where local congestion problems have been solved and there has been some land left over, accommodation plots and so on have been given to landless men. I assume that policy will continue. This amendment is quite unnecessary from the point of view of enabling the Land Commission to give land to landless men, if they, in their wisdom, think proper to do so.

Mr. Tully

May I point out that it was the Minister who used the term to which he has referred when speaking about migrants, and not I. We have literally thousands of them in Meath. Most are excellent farmers. A small number know nothing whatever about agriculture. They have locked up their farms and gone to work in England. The Minister is as well aware of that as I am.

Mr. Moran

That is typical midland propaganda in relation to migrants.

Mr. Tully

Will the Minister come down to me and I will show him the locked-up houses?

Mr. Moran

I know them as well as the Deputy.

Mr. Tully

They could not make a living on a good farm. The Minister should not talk nonsense. He knows nothing about it. May I say that the good farmers are more against bringing in more migrants than I am? Will the Minister get that into his head? They are the people who say that, if there is a further division of land in the area, they are entitled to it and not, to use their own expression, some more migrants. It is extraordinary that, while the Minister is prepared to blame me and accuse me of casting a slur on his fellow-countymen, who have come over to Meath, he does not seem to appreciate that what I am saying is that, while the people who are there have been made welcome, we feel the people who are actually living in the county, including those who have come in, should be considered before any more are brought in.

Mr. O'Sullivan

The Minister expresses horror at the idea of including landless men. One recalls that there was a period in which his Party encouraged applications from landless men and considered such applications. That did not work too well and it was a countyman of mine, who was Minister at the time, who admitted it was a failure in the circumstances in which the policy had been operated. I am satisfied there is a category worthy of consideration under this section. I spoke to the Minister about them and he expressed a certain sympathy. I refer to the dairymen in the south of Ireland.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That does not seem to arise on this amendment.

Mr. O'Sullivan

They are classified as landless men and this amendment would give them the recognition they have not got at the moment. They do not own land. They rent land and they pay dearly for it. They spend their lives working it. They rear families on it. They are landless; yet, they are not considered. All their experience and their qualifications demand that they should be considered. They do not rob the land they work; they put back into it more than they take out of it. They have very little hope of ever becoming land owners. They have grown smaller in numbers now and I suggest to the Minister they would prove very desirable allottees. They are not satisfied they have got a fair crack of the whip.

I urge the Minister to recognise the existence of this category. Because of their high outgoings, they have not been able to save to buy land and I suggest they are entitled to special consideration. They have proved themselves capable, despite high rents, of increasing production. Their children are being trained in agriculture and as dairymen and would prove worthy successors of their parents. When I was a child, there were greater numbers of them than there are today. They have no hope of competing for land in the open market. I appeal to the Minister to accept these in the category of landless men.

Mr. Moran

For the reasons already stated, I reject this amendment.

Mr. O'Sullivan

Will the Minister comment on my remarks?

Mr. Moran

The Deputy came in here about four minutes ago. I have been commenting on this amendment for the past hour and I shall not repeat the same arguments for the delectation of the Deputy at this hour of the night.

Mr. O'Sullivan

As a Minister, the Minister is obliged to sit in this House so long as any Deputy sits in it. For the period during which I was not in the House I was otherwise engaged. If the Chair calls on a Deputy to make a contribution, the Deputy is entitled to make it, irrespective of whatever opinion the Minister may hold. If I advance a view, there is an obligation on the Minister to listen. He may not object to my intervention.

Mr. Moran

I did not object to the Deputy intervening. I object to covering the same ground as I have covered adequately in the past hour. I have answered all the arguments put forward on the very same lines as the Deputy's in regard to landless men.

Mr. O'Sullivan

The Minister need not be discourteous. If he has a logical answer, he can make it.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

The Minister referred to the NFA report and referred to the recommendations in regard to the allocation of land. I submit the Minister did not give the correct picture.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.