The time remaining for debate on this motion is 1 hour 30 minutes and Deputy L'Estrange has 23 minutes left.
Private Members' Business. - Land Allocation: Motion (Resumed).
Debate resumed on the following motion:
That Dáil Éireann is of opinion that, in view of the change in forms of transport, etc. since the Land Commission decided to confine allocations of land to landless men living within half a mile of an estate and to uneconomic holders living within one mile of an estate being divided, all suitable applicants living within five miles of an estate being divided should, where possible, be allocated land on that estate.
—(Deputy Tully).
While speaking more or less in favour of this motion last evening I indicated that I would be in favour of a three mile radius and, in certain circumstances, a five mile radius so far as the purchase of land is concerned. In Westmeath when a farm of 300 or 400 acres is offered for sale, we contact the Land Commission. They send their inspectors to the area and very often report back to us to the effect that there is not sufficient congestion inside a mile radius of the estate concerned to justify their purchasing it. The aim of the Government should be to acquire the greatest pool of land possible between now and our entry to the EEC so that such land will be ready for division among small farmers and landless men and so that accommodation plots can be given to deserving persons and to people who may have land on the 11-month system and who may have been earning their living for 20 years or so by dealing in cattle.
We are all aware of the extent of the problem facing the Minister in this respect. The present Minister is adopting a more progressive attitude than was ever adopted by any of his predecessors. He is to be complimented on that. For many years he has been an independent-minded man. Perhaps he has suffered for that.
I would regard anybody who is trying to make a living on a holding of less than 30 acres as being nothing less than a slave. Such people are entitled to better treatment from the nation than they are getting. Farmers have been in the front-line trenches in every war that we have experienced, whether national, social or economic. In order to illustrate the enormity of the problem facing the Minister and the Department I would point out that in 1969 there were 353,000 farms in Ireland and excluding holdings of between one-quarter and five acres there were 31,232 farms of less than 30 acres in the province of Leinster. In Munster the number of holdings of less than 30 acres was 31,176; in Connacht the figure was 49,333 and in the Counties Cavan, Donegal and Monaghan there were 25,086 such farms. These farms totalled 136,725 and they can be considered as being uneconomic holdings. These farmers are entitled to more land and that is one of the reasons I would go along with a five-mile radius. The number of holdings that can be classified as uneconomic amount to 45 per cent of the total number of farms in the country and we find if we take into consideration those holdings of between one and five acres, that the total number that can be considered as uneconomic is 60 per cent. Of course, many people with holdings of less than five acres are not depending on their holding for a livelihood. Since the pool of land that would be necessary to render these holdings economic is not available, we can understand the extent of the problem facing the Minister.
So far as land is concerned, the issue has never been one for politics. There is no doubt as to the need for a major re-organisation of the structure of the Land Commission so as to reverse the present unhealthy trend towards the elimination of the farm family. Therefore, it is necessary for the Land Commission to acquire more land for division.
Up to recently some politicians, including myself and, I think, the Minister, had been saying that the days of the Land Commission were numbered, that they had accomplished much of their work. However, as I see the position now there has never been more need for a body like them than there is today. I say this so that the land will not fall into the hands of foreigners or, indeed, into the hands of Irish speculators. There should be restructuring of the Land Commission to enable them to acquire the greatest pool of land possible which they can sell if necessary, let on a long-term basis, or allot to smallholders as they have been doing. In certain cases land should be given to farmers' sons and landless men. The commission should be agents for the purpose of administering a land policy. Too much of our land is falling into the hands of national speculators—builders, doctors, veterinary surgeons——
Hear, hear.
——and other people who are not interested in land but who are interested in evading income tax. Such people are not making the best use of land they acquire while there are many small farmers existing in slavery. These small farmers sometimes make arrangements to get a loan from the Agricultural Credit Corporation, but when they go to the auctioning of whatever land they are interested in they may find that the local veterinary surgeon or some other such person buys the land. Is it any wonder that very often there is much frustration among smallholders on this account? There should be an accelerated drive on the part of the Land Commission to build up uneconomic holdings to conform with modern requirements and by that I mean that they should aim at holdings of not less than 60 acres of good land. The family farm must be capable of yielding a standard of living that compares satisfactorily with what is available to those engaged in non-agricultural employment.
Deputy L'Estrange will appreciate that this is not a general debate. The motion relates to the distance of an applicant from the farm that is being divided.
Yes, but I want to say that the policy of the Land Commission up to now in adhering to the one-mile limit has resulted in untold harm. The work force in agriculture has declined by 173,000 during the past 20 years. Almost 40 per cent of persons born since the establishment of the State have emigrated permanently. This can be attributed to the lack of powers of the Land Commission and to their being confined to a one-mile limit.
I might point out also, that Ireland is the only country in the world that has suffered a decline in population. Our population has decreased by 6 per cent during the past 50 years while the population of the world generally has increased by about 85 per cent. The decline in the number of people between 20 and 45 years of age has been more rapid in the past 50 years than in the preceding 50 and has declined during the past 20 years at a greater rate than at any other time since the Famine. In many cases the Land Commission were forced to give land to unmarried people, including some old bachelors, because they were not allowed to go outside the mile limit. If they had not had to work within that restriction they could have given land to young married men who would have made a success of it.
Because of the failure of Land Commission policy the number of farms decreased in the ten years 1956-1966 by 34,000. Now some people would claim that the terms of this motion would result in differentiation as against the people of the west because if the distance is extended from one mile to five miles that will prevent those in the west getting land in the Midlands. We do not want any discrimination against the west. Those of them who have migrated to the midlands have made excellent use of the land. If the extension asked for is made, then instead of the land going to speculators and others, it will go to small farmers and landless men.
There are many landless men in Longford/Westmeath. Some years ago I gave the Minister a figure of 500 young people with no land. Though they had no land they were engaged in farming. They took land on the 11-months system and they made a living for themselves and their families. Because farmers are generally better off today land is no longer being let on the 11-months system and these unfortunate men now have their backs to the wall. The Minister promised last year that he would give these sympathetic consideration and actually some of them have got farms. They will make excellent use of them.
This enlightened approach by the Minister is very heartening. Until the Minister took the initiative and made certain changes, no matter how deserving a small farmer was, if he was outside the mile limit, he just was not considered. I know one area in Westmeath in which three unmarried brothers, all well over 50, got farms from the Land Commission. In the same area there were two splendid young men, one with eight children and the other with six, who had gone to the local bank manager and purchased 18 acres of land and 20 acres of land respectively. They purchased tractors and they raised cattle. One had 15 or 16 cows and the other had 22 or 23 cows. They were working a sevenday week and it was not a 40-hour week but a 100-hour week. Because they were less than 200 yards from the land being divided both of them were passed over and three old bachelors all got farms. This is a retrograde step. Rules and regulations are made to be broken but it was not until the present Minister took office that a more enlightened approach was adopted.
I know a case in which land was divided into eight farms and four of those farms were given to four bachelors well over 60. Struggling farmers who were just slightly outside the limit got no land. These are the people who should get consideration. Land should be given to young married couples with families and not to old bachelors. In the Scully Report we find that in 54 per cent of the farms in the west the owners are unmarried and over 55 years of age.
The Land Commission are responsible for the plight of agriculture. Their policy has been short-sighted and this iniquitous regulation has done untold harm. I know of a farmer with five young children who was refused land because he was over a quarter of a mile outside the limit. He had only a path into his house and he could not bring in any machinery. Had he got land along the main road where the land was being divided he could have built a new house and provided his wife and children with frugal comfort. But the Land Commission refused to consider him for no other reason except that he was outside the one mile limit. In this particular case two farms were given to two bachelors over 60 years of age. When Deputy Moran was Minister for Lands he said there was nothing sacred about the mile limit but when one approached the Land Commission one was invariably told this was the regulation.
Land bonds have been mentioned. The Minister promised he would do something about land bonds. The quicker he does something really radical about them the better it will be. At the moment it is nothing short of legalised robbery. I wrote to the Minister about a case in which land was taken in 1967 and the man was promised 4½ per cent bonds. He has not yet been paid and I think the bonds are now worth only £50 or £60 for every £100. In the meantime he has bought a bit of land and he is paying interest to the bank. This is absolutely unjust. If the Minister wants to get the maximum pool of land he will have to alter the present policy because, as Deputy Barrett said last night, nobody wants land bonds.
I want to put to the Minister something which has happened and is happening at present. There is a farm of land of over 300 acres. The man concerned is a building contractor in Dublin and he is prepared to give it to the Land Commission but the Land Commission tell us that there are not sufficient farmers inside the mile area. There are farmers in Westmeath who are quite prepared to take this three and four miles, but as Deputy Tully stated, if you get sufficient inside the mile, then allocate inside the mile, and if you go outside it, go outside. It would be much better to extend the mile to three miles or five miles so that the Minister would get the maximum amount of land.
I want to congratulate the Minister on his more enlightened policy over the years and I hope he gets his head with regard to his policy for the western farmers which was announced three years ago. It is an excellent policy to leave those people on their own small farms and to give them a few days work in the week at tourism, forestry, road work or industry, so that they can keep their small farms and through a combination of what they get out of the farm, plus the few days work, they can work in their own interests and in the interests of the nation.
First of all, I want to thank the Deputies for their contributions to this debate. It is always nice to be praised or to have something friendly said about one, so I appreciate the remarks of Deputy Tully and Deputy L'Estrange so far as I am concerned. We discussed this motion in almost the same terms about 11 months ago and I was rather surprised that Deputy Tully sought to re-introduce it so soon because all the reasons I gave less than a year ago for rejecting the motion are, in my opinion, still valid and nothing has happened in the meantime to suggest that the change proposed in the motion ought to be made.
I should like to remind the House that if the Land Commission were to extend the area within which farmers could qualify for land to a radius of five miles from the estate being divided, it would involve the Land Commission in questioning people in 80 square miles. I tried to work this out—and I am not a noted mathematician—and it is something like 75 or 80 square miles, and this shows, I think, that the proposition is not sustainable. I have often stated in this House that the real problem, which was indicated by Deputy L'Estrange, is that we do not have enough land to cope with the problems of the thousands of farmers whose holdings are now too small. The truth is that we would need to take over the State of Texas, and maybe a couple of other States as well, before we could solve in a purely agricultural way the problems of the farmers of this country.
We are not alone in this. Other European countries and Governments have been working very hard in trying to reduce the incidence of fragmentation of farm holdings and I think it is true to say that all European Governments at present are trying to give farmers an opportunity of making the best of their land by giving them a single unit farm. I do not accept now, and, indeed, my view on this has hardened in the past 12 months, that good farming—certainly the best farming—is possible where the parent holding and the parcel are separated by a considerable distance, and I can assure Deputy Tully and Deputy L'Estrange that if they were in my position, they would discover that every year there are literally thousands of applications from farmers who have land three, four and five miles away from their parent holding to the Land Commission to take it from them and give them some land closer by. At the same time, there is, as I have said and as is agreed by the House, the practical problem that we simply do not have enough land to give every applicant what he desires and all the Land Commission can do in the circumstances with whatever land they have is to do the best job they can to build up farmers' holdings to the best of their ability.
The mile limit is not a rigid insistence on a precise mile. This has been pointed out here by myself and my predecessors.
Your predecessors stuck to it; you did not.
No, I did extend it a little, but the mile as such was never, in fact, a rigid rule. It was a practice rather than a rule. There is, of course, always the possibility of a re-arrangement scheme where congestion exists, a re-arrangement scheme involving the migration of one or more of the congested landowners to some other part of the country. As I see Deputy Tully's view, the gravamen of his case is that migration should be ended. I accept what Deputy Tully says, that the people who have come to Meath, Kildare, Dublin and so forth from the west were made welcome as, indeed, they were by the people of the east, but it is obvious that if there were to be an extension to three miles, as suggested by Deputy L'Estrange, or to five miles, as suggested by Deputy Tully, there could not possibly also be any migration. I think Deputy Tully would accept the logic of this.
I still hold the view that as far as possible migration from one county to another should end and this for social rather than for other reasons, because I would simply like to have employment for our people in our own counties and obviate the necessity of their having to be shifted, and it is the view of the majority of the Deputies in my county that migration, except within counties, should as soon as possible be terminated.
We come back always to the question of the possibility of a farmer making a success of his business, and this is very closely connected with the type of farm he operates. It has been well proved in every country, not just in Ireland, that if a farmer is operating on three or four parcels of land scattered here and there over a radius of two or three miles, his overall result is poor. He has transport problems, management problems and so on, and there is a very significant increase in costs involved in the working of a parcel of land which is appreciably separated from the main farm. These costs increase still further as the distance between the parcel and the main farm increases, so that you get a diminishing return from your investment, especially, as I have said, in labour and transport.
I mentioned last March, in the previous debate, the findings of a survey on this subject which had been carried out in Europe just before that time. The findings revealed that in the sample covered by the study, although travel time between the parcels had been reduced by the advent of motor transport, the costs of the transport were high and constituted a significant item in the total investment required. These costs were regarded by the survey team as a waste, and the recommendation was that they should be eliminated by a restructuring programme designed to create more compact farms.
Of course an experienced farmer knows this anyway without the aid of scientific research. We can all envisage a certain acreage which can be worked by one man if it were in a compact unit but which would necessitate the employment of help if it were broken up into several parcels some miles away from each other. Not only will the costs of working the same acreage of land increase but the owner will almost certainly find himself very restricted in the type of enterprise which is then suitable. This is a very significant point and one which I would ask the Deputies urging us to accept this motion to consider carefully.
Granting all this then, the State, having invested in the purchase of land, must have regard to the optimum return obtainable from the investment and a person getting that must, in his own interest, make a similar judgement. Last March I mentioned several reasons why the parent holding and the parcel should be as close together as possible. These include the necessity nowadays of avoiding the creation of additional traffic hazards; the campaign by planning authorities to discourage the creation of farm openings leading directly on the main roads; the legal liability of farmers for skidding conditions created by stock on roads; and the difficulty of protecting an isolated parcel against trespass and damage. There is no need for me to elaborate on these points this evening.
In brief then, the weight of evidence, if I could use a legal phrase, is very much against the idea of allowing the Land Commission or asking the Land Commission to extend their radius of operation as regards the division of land to five miles as against the present, roughly, one mile limit. This is the evidence not merely from the thousands of requests from farmers in this country who want to give up land which is much nearer than five miles away from them but from all over the world as shown by the desire of farmers to have their land in a compact unit if at all possible and, if not, that any additional land should be as close by as they would desire.
From a practical point of view I do not really see how the Land Commission could interview people over an area of 80 square miles every time they are dividing land. I must say I admire the capacity of Deputy Tully to be able to talk for 40 minutes, and persuasively at that, on a proposition which I regard as totally unsustainable and which I think that the Deputy himself, on reflection, will realise is unsustainable also. It is just not practicable. As Deputy Sylvester Barrett said, if the officials of the Land Commission are slow in dealing with applications within a radius of a mile, what would be the position if they had to examine everybody within 80 square miles every time they were going to divide a piece of land? It is just ludicrous.
Deputy Sylvester Barrett also said that an anomaly existed in County Clare. He did raise this problem last year. I intended to look into it and I did not, but I should like to undertake to Deputy Barrett that I shall certainly have this matter examined, and, if possible, have this rather odd situation in his constituency and county rectified.
As regards the acquisition of land why can the Land Commission not go outside an 80 square mile limit, where, say, there is a farm of 300 acres and the commissioners say there is not enough congestion inside the mile? This farm could be sold to speculators. Why can the Land Commission not go outside to purchase a farm like that?
Deputy L'Estrange raised a number of items in regard to speculators, national and foreigners, which were not really relevant to this debate.
Mr. J. Lenehan
If the Minister thinks any Deputy in this House believes what he has just said he must be simpleminded because it is nonsense.
Would Deputy Lenehan allow the Minister to make his speech?
Mr. J. Lenehan
We might as well have no Minister for Lands as have the Minister. Let him wake up and have some common sense. I might as well tell him off at last, because I am sick of him.
Would Deputy Lenehan behave himself?
Mr. J. Lenehan
I am behaving myself. I am telling the truth.
The Deputy is doing nothing of the kind.
Mr. J. Lenehan
The Minister is not telling the truth. I am not saying he is a liar.
The Minister's time is limited and he should be allowed to speak. He only has a limited time the same as other Deputies.
Mr. J. Lenehan
I am not trying to put him off saying what he wants but I want to say this——
The Deputy may not. Will the Deputy please resume his seat and allow the Minister to speak?
Deputy L'Estrange had a query about the acquisition of land by speculators. Although not really relevant to the debate this is a very important matter. It is one with which I dealt in the House before and I think I made the situation clear. As regards the Deputy's query all land is required for the purpose of division. In regard to the case the Deputy was talking about, the Land Commission through their inspectorate will certainly put all the facts before the Commissioners who are responsible for making the ultimate decision. As Minister, I am satisfied that, in general, the information furnished to the Commissioners by the staff is comprehensive. That is really all I have to say on the motion.
Deputy Tully said to me before we took this motion that we would not have to sit here for three hours if I said I would accept it. I am not accepting it but I appreciate the sincerity of Deputy Tully and the other Deputies who spoke in favour of it. I take the other view for the reasons I have offered to the House and believe it would be a retrograde step to change the present policy along the lines suggested.
I believe this motion is an important one. I believe Deputy Tully had very good reasons for bringing the motion before the House. I have something to say which I believe will come in for quite an amount of criticism because it is something that very few people seem to agree with. I believe the Irish Land Commission are doing a good job and I find that most of the officials from the inspectors to the men laying the fences are doing a very good job. I said previously in the House that in regard to the division of land Solomon himself would not be able to divide land to the satisfaction of everybody because land is something which everybody wishes to own. It stirs the emotions of almost everybody in an area when land is being divided.
I have seen estates which the Land Commission have divided up. I have seen houses, outhouses and fences which they have erected and I have been impressed by the work they have been doing. If the Department of Local Government were as stringent in seeing that their houses were as well built as those built by the Land Commission, then all the houses in the country would be in much better condition. I am only speaking of the Land Commission in Leix/Offaly, North Tipperary and Carlow/Kilkenny as they are areas I know well and in all those areas they have done wonderful work. It is very easy to ensure a good job is being done if, in fact, the people in charge look after it.
This does not arise on the motion which is limited. It relates only to applicants living a certain distance from land which is being divided. We cannot have a general debate on land division.
I am aware of that. I wish to enlarge the points I want to make. I believe some figures are very relevant in regard to the Estimate for the Department of Lands. In 1961-62 the allocation to that Department was £2,327,880 and for 1971-72 the allocation was £4,161,000. Therefore, the amount of money given to the Land Commission in ten years was not even doubled. The Department of Agriculture and Fisheries in 1961-62 were granted £60,145,160 and in 1971-72 they were granted £72,772,000.
Would the Deputy please make some point in relation to the motion?
I am coming to it. The Department of Lands have not been allowed capital on a pro rata basis with other Departments and, therefore, they are not in a position to carry out work on the wide basis it is essential they should carry it out on. In regard to the five-mile limit it is absolutely impossible for the Land Commission to carry out the necessary work because they are working on a shoestring. The referendum on the EEC will be held some time during the summer months.
I am afraid the Deputy has evidently not read the motion which relates to the distance an applicant resides from a farm that is being divided. That is the net point.
I have been put off my point. The point I am getting at is that the Land Commission have been too confined and restricted by the funds put at their disposal. Like any individual, they should be enabled to purchase land on the open market and to divide it among people who need it in the area concerned. In ten years the price of land has increased four or five times and because of this the Land Commission are limited in the amount of land they can acquire and divide.
This has nothing to do with the motion.
I am quite relevant.
The Deputy is not relevant. He has not yet come to the motion before the House and even though he has a prepared speech I am not prepared to allow him to make it on those lines.
The point I am making is quite relevant. It is that the Land Commission should be enabled to expand, that they should be given sufficient capital, and I particularly urge that they be allowed to give land over a five-mile radius. Occasionally a second son or a third son who would not fall in for the family holding could be given land within a five-mile area. This should be considered. As I have said, the price of land has quadrupled in the past ten years and yet the Land Commission have not had their amount doubled. I suggest that they should be given more capital and in this way be enabled to give land to people already engaged in agriculture, to people who do not own land but who have their own cows and send milk to the creameries, who rear pigs and sheep and so on. They should be entitled to land.
If the Land Commission are to pursue an effective policy it is essential they be given sufficient funds with which to do it. I suggest that the land policy referred to in the white paper on EEC entry is not sufficiently detailed. If we are to face up to Common Market potential it is essential that the Land Commission should be encouraged to purchase more land. They should be enabled to acquire all the suitable land that comes on the market. The Minister-said it should be possible to ensure that Irish people should be able to get land in their own immediate localities. I agree with this because people in their own localities will appreciate the type of farming and will be better able to use the land there to the best advantage. At present there are safeguards in the Land Act to prevent foreigners from buying land but many people are not satisfied.
We may not have a discussion on that point.
I believe that what I am saying is relevant.
It is relevant on the Estimate but not on this restricted motion.
I have been endeavouring to limit my speech. I was referring to what the Minister said in regard to ensuring that the land of Ireland is kept for Irishmen. This is highly important and I believe that if the referendum on the Common Market is defeated it is because of the fears of small farmers in this respect. At the present time there is great fear among small farmers in regard to the Common Market.
They need not have it. This is far from relevant and I do not think it is proper that Deputy Enright should deal with totally irrelevant matters. This is a very serious subject. The farmer of Ireland need not have any fears in this respect.
I am anxious that the Minister would realise that there is fear among small farmers.
It cannot be discussed on this motion.
The farmers need not worry. I deplore Deputy Enright's insistence on discussing this matter.
I am satisfied that the Minister appreciates the anxiety of farmers. I believe what I have said is relevant and it is better that it has been said. All suitable applicants within a range of five miles of an estate should be given land. Where possible, the land should be divided among the people in the area. Having regard to the amount of mechanisation in agriculture the old limit regarding distance is no longer relevant. Many applicants who are living within the one-mile limit or even the five-mile limit find that the rents being charged are exorbitant——
That does not arise in this case. It has nothing to do with the motion.
If I might make a final point, the allocation of money to the Department of Lands should be increased. I support the motion.
I understand the purpose of the motion is to allow the Land Commission more room to be selective in the way they allocate the limited amount of land in their possession. They should not be limited in their choice to those who happen to live within a mile of an estate but should be able to consider those living outside that area who might be in a better position to work the land more efficiently. I support the motion as framed on that basis.
It is important that the Land Commission should ensure that they are able to give whatever land they have to smallholders or landless men who are best able to work the land. They should not be constrained by any rules which were set in the thirties when transport and other matters relating to farm management were not as developed as today. While it might have been difficult in the thirties to manage a farm that was more than a mile away, with modern transport it is easy to do so now.
I foresee certain difficulties in setting a five-mile limit if it is expected that everyone within that radius must be interviewed and given a hearing. If a person living, say, 4.8 miles from the estate is not interviewed he could have a grievance. Obviously if everyone within the five-mile limit had to be interviewed the administrative job involved in allocating any estate would be very much greater than it is at present. This would mean that the complaints already being made about land being too long in the possession of the Land Commission would be even more vociferously expressed.
However, I think the proposer of the motion has in mind that the Land Commission should keep going out as far as possible and when they have enough suitable applicants they should stop interviewing. Obviously there will be room for doubt about what constitutes a suitable applicant and if the five-mile rule is applied I can foresee people who are within this area becoming aggrieved. I can envisage many difficulties and ill-feeling developing after the division of an estate. However, on that basis I shall not reject the proposal out of hand, but it is a difficulty that must be dealt with because there is the danger of bad feeling arising afterwards.
The solution to the problem is for the Land Commission to expand considerably the manner in which they allocate land. The present system of giving people land from an estate which has been taken over is not the only way. The Land Commission should consider the possibility of giving land to farmers on a long-term lease where this is appropriate. Also, they should consider giving low interest loans to enable farmers to buy land that might come on the market. Alternatively, if the Land Commission have bought land they might be prepared to allocate it to people within the county if they were able to put up some money themselves in addition to money the Land Commission would give at low interest rates.
There are certain advantages in this system. A man will not purchase land by means of a loan unless he has definite and worthwhile plans in mind regarding repayment of the loan. At the moment the inspectors go round and they count the number of stock the man has, but they are not as well equipped to assess his capacity to make a good job of working the land as is the person concerned. The man would be the best person to judge this if he knew he had to repay the loan.
This is a matter that must be considered. While I would not be in favour of going over completely to a credit system, it should be tried in a few areas to find out if it provides a better criterion for dividing the land than the present systems. Different estates could be allocated by way of different systems and this might get over the various difficulties that possibly lie behind this motion, at the same time meeting the valid case which is the basis on which the motion was introduced. We cannot afford to be over-dogmatic in our approach to this matter. We must be as experimental and pragmatic as possible and find the best way of giving land to the smallholder who can make good use of it.
I am grateful for the consideration displayed by those who took part in the debate. It showed that in most cases they had a clear understanding of what was meant by the motion but there were exceptions. I did not agree with many of the comments made and I regret that the motion was the cause of someone being insulting to the Minister. During my time in the House the Minister has never been insulting to anyone and it is unfortunate that a Deputy should be allowed to behave in this way, particularly as the person concerned is a rare visitor in the House.
Apparently some of the newspapers misreported a comment I made here last night about the Land League. An official of the Land League suggested to me this morning—and when I read the three newspapers I realised which newspaper he had read—that I had said the Land League were breaking the law and that I would not be prepared to support them when they broke the law. In fact, I went out of my way last night to point out that I believed the Land League were a law-abiding group and that I was prepared to support them, but that off-shoots of the Land League who have been breaking the law, and who apparently have encouraged others to break the law, would get no support from me. I do not think they would get any support from any sensible person inside or outside this House.
Hear, hear.
The Land League, like other organisations, are entitled to make peaceful protests. I understand that at least one inspector has advised the Land Commission that it is not wise to purchase land in an area where the Land League are active. If this is so, it is a mistake. I was told very definitely that this has happened. I asked for the source and I was told it was a letter which had been sent to a Fianna Fáil TD in a certain area from the Land Commission. When I checked on the Fianna Fáil TD's name, I discovered that that Fianna Fáil gentleman does not grace the benches of this House. Maybe he has ambitions that way and therefore he was hawking around a letter which he thought would be of some use to him locally, even though he was stabbing his Minister in the back. These things happen in the best regulated parties.
I am afraid Deputy Barrett missed the point. I grant that he has a knowledge of the west of Ireland which I have not got, and I am sure he will accept that I have a knowledge of the east of Ireland, and particularly in my own constituency which he has not got. I can understand his point of view when he talked about what would happen if everyone within five miles of and area had to be interviewed before an extra half acre was given to somebody. It was Deputy Kavanagh who pointed out that 51 per cent of all the land in the west is congested so I can understand Deputy Barret's difficulty.
I did not say that everyone within five miles of an estate should be interviewed before the estate is divided. I said very clearly that when the inspector goes down he should start on the edge of the estate and go around in circles until he had enough eligible people. We have accused the Land Commission inspectors of going around in circles, and peculiar types of circles at times. When we get the results we sometimes wonder at them. Despite what was said here tonight, I believe that the Land Commission inspectors are given a job to do and do it to the best of their ability. If we who know about the matter at local level find that it is wrong, that is just too bad. I am quite sure they are not so dishonest as to do some of the things that are suggested about them.
I believe that the Land Commission inspectors are so hide-bound with regulations that they insist on carrying a book in their pockets and, every time something comes up, they look at that book to see if they are allowed to do something and, if they are not allowed to do it, it is not done. This is what I am trying to break down. I do not know whether the Minister is quite aware of the situation in relation to the half-mile. It is quite wrong to say that a man who has no land cannot be considered if he lives more than half a mile from an estate. If it had been a mile in both cases, perhaps it would not have looked so bad over the years. Now we have the "half-milers" and the "milers". It reminds me of Santry.
We should not confine the allocation of land to people within a half-mile or a mile of an estate, and not go outside that no matter how well qualified those outside that area may be. Deputy L'Estrange said that to his knowledge —and to my knowledge too—people have been debarred from getting land because they were a few hundred yards outside what the Land Commission inspector thought was the regulation distance. The Minister very fairly said that there is no such regulation. It existed only in the mind of a senior Land Commission official who handed it down. There is nothing in the Land Acts, and there is nothing in any written regulation made in this House, which says that a landless man must be within half a mile, and a smallholder must be within a mile of an estate, or he is disqualified from getting a portion of land.
What I am trying to do in this motion is to get the House to accept that the conditions should be relaxed so that the Land Commission inspector will get the best type of applicants in the area. I believe he can do this without having to do all the extra work which has been suggested. Deputy Barrett and Deputy Bruton—and the Minister confirmed it later—talked about the tremendous amount of work which would be involved and the big number of people who would have to be interviewed if this were put into operation. First, I am not suggesting that everyone in the area should be interviewed. Secondly, I am not suggesting that every man woman and child has to be interviewed. As we all know the number of eligible people in a five-mile radius might be 100.
When we go to the Land Commission on a deputation they can tell us the colour of the hair of the eldest child and what school the children went to. The information they have picked up is very well documented. The "nosey parkers" who want to hinder or help—I do not know which —supply this type of information to every public body. The Land Commission have files and the Special Branch are only trotting after them when it comes to the information they have on applicants. It is not necessary to interview everybody and the number who would be interviewed would not be nearly as great as is suggested.
One of the arguments made—and it was made last year too—is that the pool of land is not big enough. Of course we cannot supply land to everyone who wants it but will somebody tell me why a man with 300 or 400 acres of land which he is ranching should be allowed to buy every bit of land that comes up for sale in the area? Every acre he buys is depriving some man who is in need of a bit of land. This should be stopped.
Despite the 1965 Land Act, and despite section 45 of that Act, foreigners are still buying land. The Minister supplied me with an answer to a question over 12 months ago which horrified me. Literally thousands of acres have been allowed to pass into the hands of foreigners. Deputy Enright was ruled out of order when he referred to this. I just want to make the passing reference that if we cannot do more to solve the problems of the landless men and the smallholders before we enter the EEC, if we ever do enter it, the first thing that will disappear will be the Land Commission. I make that prophesy because they will not be able to compete with the prices which the continentals will be prepared to pay for the good land of this country.
The Minister had his tongue in his cheek when he was referring to the man who does not want to have his holding broken into two or three pieces because of the time it takes to go from one place to another. If he lived in County Meath he might take a different view. The man who has a small amount of land, and who must take conacre, often has to travel four, five, ten, 15 or 20 miles to and from his farm. He must do it or he ceases to be a farmer. Would it not suit him better if he were able to keep the portions of his holding even within five miles of each other? Farmers are continually looking for "swaps" so that they can have their portions of land together. It is good that this should happen. The opposite is the case with regard to the conacre farmer. I mentioned some of them who had to go out of business because they were not satisfied. I am afraid I would not be prepared to agree that the cost of transport either in Europe or in this country is so great that it would put anybody out of business. The man who travels around the country in a car at night could, I am sure, afford to spend a few shillings on diesel oil for his tractor during the day.
With regard to the Minister's other argument about the traffic hazards, he has a point but, of course, the man with the tractor is no more dangerous than anybody else on the road. In fact, he is usually more careful. It will not mean any additional openings on to the road from the field. They will use the existing gates.
With regard to the question of stock on the roads, what we are trying to do here is to get stock off the roads. As the Minister must know, the man who has no land or only a small portion of land uses the long acre. The guards do not co-operate. They are very antiagriculture when it comes to the question of a man using the best grass in the place. They cannot see why the grass should be cropped by somebody's cows. The Minister knows that the cottier puts the cows out only to make the place look better. The guard will not accept that excuse and will usually prosecute. One poor old lady was in court five times in two months because, having two or three cows and not enough land to feed them, she used the long acre. If land were given to people like that it would take stock off the road rather than put them on to it.
There is something which happens and I do not know whether it is done deliberately by the Land Commission or not. A farmer may be within a mile of an estate that is to be divided. Somebody is brought up from the far end of the estate and is given the land nearest to him, with the result that he is then over one mile from the nearest part of the estate. This should not happen. I have got complaints recently that this did, in fact, happen. The Land Commission should be more open about this. So far as we are concerned, we want the regulations to operate so that those who are entitled to land will get it.
As the Minister was generous in saying, particularly in Kildare and Meath, migrants have been treated as if they belonged to the place. The Minister may not be aware of the fact that the bitterest opponents of additional migrants being brought in are those migrants who have already got land in the area. I have attended numerous meetings. They ask why should people be brought from Mayo, Galway or Donegal and given the land that they want. They may have been there only ten years or a little more. It shows that they realise the difficulties and that it does not help anybody to bring in other people and to give them land which they want for themselves. I happened to be present with a deputation to the Land Commission seeking more land than the 45 acres. There was a farm going in an area. It was felt that if they did not get an addition now, they would never get it. This is a matter which the Land Commission will have to decide on. It brings out Deputy L'Estrange's point about the number of eligible farmers. What is an eligible farmer? Who is an eligible applicant? Does the Minister consider and, if so, will he convey his opinion to the Land Commission, that a conacre farmer who has been taking conacre consistently on or near an estate should be entitled to be considered for an addition? There may be an estate which for years has been let either for tillage or grass and people who are just over a mile or two or three miles from that farm have been taking the land in conacre and have built up a living for themselves, even though they were paying excessive rent for the land. Is it not terribly annoying to them to find when the land is being divided that they are ruled out because somebody in the Land Commission years ago decided that a mile was far enough or, in the case of a landless man, that a half-mile was far enough? These are terribly important matters which should be considered.
I have already said, and it must be repeated, and it cannot be repeated too often, that, as far as I know, this Minister does not interfere in the allocation of land. I have again and again pointed out to people in my constituency that I consider that the Land Commission should not be influenced by politicians of any party when it comes to the question of allocation of land. I have taken into the Land Commission people of every political persuasion. I have given them a recommendation if they were worthy of it and if they were not worthy of it I would not do it. Maybe I would do them more good if I did not give them a recommendation. That is another of the things that a politician has to put up with: he never knows. If a man asks for a recommendation when applying for land, he is entitled to get it.
There is one other thing which is terribly important. Perhaps the Minister would do something about this. The Land Commission seem to have a right which is given to no other State body, that is, the right to give a vague reply to every letter written to them. If a Member of this House asks for information which the Land Commission have, that information should be given. It is not enough to send out a stencilled reply in which certain items are filled in, sometimes incorrectly. Deputies do not want the information for themselves. They need it to pass it on to the people who put us here. It is bad enough to get a stencilled reply but when the information contained in it is incorrect, it causes a bit of trouble and it does not help the blood pressure. The Minister might suggest to the Land Commission that if a Member of the House—there are not so many Members—asks for information, that information should be given if it is available. We are not interfering. We are simply looking for facts.
I would appeal to the Minister to accept the motion, which simply means that if a farm is being divided the Land Commission inspector or inspectors should be able to find the number of people eligible for the land by starting on the outskirts of the farm and moving outwards in a circle until eventually he finds enough people. In that way we will improve agriculture because we will be getting the best type of farmers.
Motion put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 39; Níl, 66.
Tá
- Barry, Peter.
- Barry, Richard.
- Belton, Paddy.
- Bruton, John.
- Burke, Richard.
- Burton, Philip.
- Byrne, Hugh.
- Clinton, Mark A.
- Cluskey, Frank.
- Collins, Edward.
- Coogan, Fintan.
- Cott, Gerard.
- Coughlan, Stephen.
- Creed, Donal.
- Crotty, Kieran.
- Cruise-O'Brien, Conor.
- Desmond, Barry.
- Dockrell, Henry P.
- Dunne, Thomas.
- Enright, Thomas W.
- Fitzpatrick, Tom (Cavan).
- Harte, Patrick D.
- Hogan, Patrick.
- Jones, Denis F.
- Kavanagh, Liam.
- Keating, Justin.
- L'Estrange, Gerald.
- Lynch, Gerard.
- Malone, Patrick.
- O'Donnell, Tom.
- O'Donovan, John.
- O'Higgins, Thomas F.
- O'Leary, Michael.
- O'Reilly, Paddy.
- Taylor, Francis.
- Thornley, David.
- Timmins, Godfrey.
- Treacy, Seán.
- Tully, James.
Níl
- Aiken, Frank.
- Andrews, David.
- Barrett, Sylvester.
- Boylan, Terence.
- Brady, Philip A.
- Brennan, Joseph.
- Brennan, Paudge.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Brosnan, Seán.
- Browne, Patrick.
- Browne, Seán.
- Carter, Frank.
- Childers, Erskine.
- Colley, George.
- Collins, Gerard.
- Connolly, Gerard C.
- Cowen, Bernard.
- Cronin, Jerry.
- Crowley, Flor.
- Cunningham, Liam.
- Davern, Noel.
- Delap, Patrick.
- de Valera, Vivion.
- Dowling, Joe.
- Fahey, Jackie.
- Faulkner, Pádraig.
- Fitzpatrick, Tom (Dublin Central).
- Flanagan, Seán.
- Foley, Desmond.
- Forde, Paddy.
- French, Seán.
- Geoghegan, John.
- Gibbons, Hugh.
- Gibbons, James.
- Gogan, Richard P.
- Haughey, Charles.
- Healy, Augustine A.
- Herbert, Michael.
- Hillery, Patrick J.
- Hilliard, Michael.
- Hussey, Thomas.
- Kenneally, William.
- Kitt, Michael F.
- Lalor, Patrick J.
- Lemass, Noel T.
- Lenehan, Joseph.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Loughnane, William A.
- Lynch, Celia.
- Lynch, John.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- MacSharry, Ray.
- Meaney, Thomas.
- Moore, Seán.
- Nolan, Thomas.
- Noonan, Michael.
- O'Connor, Timothy.
- O'Kennedy, Michael.
- O'Leary, John.
- Power, Patrick.
- Sheridan, Joseph.
- Smith, Michael.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Timmons, Eugene.
- Tunney, Jim.
- Wyse, Pearse.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Cluskey and Kavanagh; Níl, Deputies Andrews and Meaney.
Question declared lost.