Vol. 58 No. 6
Before taking up consideration of the Committee Stage, I should like to indicate that I have ruled amendment No. 1, standing in the name of Senator Quinlan, out of order, on the ground that it involves a potential charge on State funds. The Senator has been notified accordingly.
SECTION 1.
It may be due to my complete ignorance of legal phraseology or just ordinary ignorance but, in the last part of this section, the verb "construed" refers to "a reference to redemption price of a superior interest, resumption price, compensation, fund and a share and a residue thereof". I understand that where a verb governs several different words or phrases, each of them should be separately understandable. In this case the one verb refers to several different phrases and words. If one omits the other words governed, one can be left with "shall be construed as a reference to fund and a share and a residue thereof". "Reference to fund" sounds odd. Also does the phrase "and a share and a residue thereof" refer only to "fund" or to all the matters mentioned? I know the word "respectively" is in, but I should like some clarification from the Minister.
That will keep the lawyers busy.
I think there are other sections of the Bill which will keep the lawyers busy as well.
This, I think, has a reference to other Land Acts and has been construed accordingly. I shall look into the suggestion made by the Senator but I know it was carefully examined in reference to its connection with other Land Acts before being put in here. I shall look into it before the Report Stage.
The Minister will agree it is not very clear as it is.
This is the section which defines a congested area. It says:
(1) Each of the following shall be a congested area for the purposes of this Act—
(a) a county or portion of a county specified in the Second Schedule to this Act;
I object to the fact that certain counties have been left out of the Schedule and I particularly object to County Cavan being left out as a congested area, and portion of County Monaghan. I know the Minister will say, and has said, that there is power in the Bill to include such areas as may from time to time be declared by order of the Minister to be congested areas but I cannot understand, nor can the people of Cavan, why County Cavan has not been scheduled. In particular, it is quite impossible to understand why West Cavan has not been included in the Bill as a congested area, and included immediately. It is just as congested, and the land is just as much inferior, as the land of Leitrim or of any of the counties included in the Schedule.
I know the Minister has said he has power to include it and I think he said in reply to the Second Reading debate that there was a commission or some such body investigating the question of what other areas should be scheduled. In 1952 or thereabouts, the Undeveloped Areas Act was passed and again Cavan was not included, although amendments were put down by the Fine Gael Deputy for Cavan asking that Cavan, and particularly West Cavan, should be included in the Bill. But the Government of the day opposed that amendment and it was not included and it took several years to persuade the Government to include County Cavan in that Act.
That is obviously what is going to happen here again; years and years will be spent considering whether County Cavan should be included under the provisions of this Bill, and in the meantime the county will be excluded from the benefits of the measure which apply only to congested areas. It is high time the old definition of congested areas was revised. I read recently that the Minister for Social Welfare has extended certain benefits to the social welfare classes or intends to prescribe that a means test will not apply to a farmer whose poor law valuation in a congested area does not exceed £10. That is another example of discrimination against counties such as Cavan and Monaghan which are every bit as needy as the counties already scheduled. I should like to hear what case the Minister can make for refusing to treat West Cavan and North Monaghan as congested areas. Perhaps it is a case of adopting the line of least resistance and adopting a definition that has existed since 1909 or whenever these congested areas were first defined. I should like to hear the Minister on this question.
I should like to support Senator Fitzpatrick, particularly in regard to West Cavan, because I can best describe it to the Minister as being akin to Leitrim. I know the area fairly well and I travel through a good many congested areas and counties and, certainly, West Cavan or a large part of it, is just as bad as, if not worse than—certainly in regard to the quality of land—many of the areas included in the Bill.
The very same argument applies to parts of Westmeath but especially to parts of County Longford, and particularly North Longford. I can see no difference between the land in Longford, especially in the north of the county, and the land in County Leitrim. There are definitely wide tracts there in which there is congestion. In Longford, out of 5,645 holdings, 3,163 are under 30 acres. The unfortunate thing about this—it will arise on another section— is that if a Longford farmer is given a holding in the midlands or elsewhere, he must pay full annuity while the farmer from Leitrim or another congested area gets away with half annuity. That is most unfair.
It is stated in section 4 that there is provision for the declaring by Ministerial order, areas as congested areas but I think we have had the same counties or portions of counties designated areas from as far back as 1909. Various complaints were made about the holding up of this Bill and so on but I should like to know when does the Minister intend to declare any other areas congested areas and if, when they were so anxious to get this Bill into operation, they had their Commissioners investigating those areas for the past year or 18 months? Could he give us any indication now of how many additional counties or areas will be added to the list of congested areas? It would have been much better if it had been done in this Bill, if the Minister had listed the parts of the counties he intended to declare as congested areas.
In a Bill such as this, it is wrong to give that power entirely to the Minister. The late Mr. Seán Moylan said on one occasion that a particular section of a Bill was:
... a much more dangerous section, giving the Minister for Finance the power to make rules. Goodness knows what rules he might make or what effect they might have. They might, perhaps, in effect, be against the whole intention of some of the sections with which we have been dealing....
The same words could apply to the powers we are giving the Minister under this section.
I should like to support the Senators who have expressed their views on this section. To be quite frank about it, there are pockets of congestion—or as I called them on the last occasion, uneconomic holdings—in practically every county of the 26 Counties. The Bill refers to certain districts in West Cork, but anyone who knows Cork County knows there are other congested areas in the county.
The Minister will probably tell us he has catered for other areas in subsection (2) of section 4, which provides that "the Minister shall have regard to the size of the holdings, the quality of the land and the type or types of farming carried on in the area to be declared a congested area". Does that mean that the districts which are specially set out in the Bill are to have first consideration, to which, of course, everybody will agree they are entitled? At what stage is subsection (2) of section 4 likely to get attention? I should like to hear from the Minister on that aspect.
His inspectors might report that certain areas were not congested but they might have good acreages and bad land. How will that be finally decided? It would be better in a Bill of this type to cater for the whole country. Donegal, Galway, Kerry, Leitrim, Mayo, Roscommon, Sligo and portions of Clare and West Cork are set out in the Bill, but there are other places which need attention. They may have a certain acreage of grazing for sheep, but they cannot be regarded as economic holdings on which families can live in reasonable comfort. I should like to hear the Minister on that point.
For 12 months the Fine Gael Party have criticised this Bill, and for 12 months they have delayed it at every opportunity. I am glad to note a change of heart on the part of Senator L'Estrange and Senator Fitzpatrick. They have paid the Minister and the Bill the greatest possible tribute. They now realise the real fruits of the Bill, and they believe in it so much that they want it to apply to their own counties.
That does not arise on this section.
I would agree with the Senator who suggested that there must be an order of priorities in dealing with this matter. Indeed, it was not today or yesterday that truth was recognised. The definition in the Schedule is taken from section 46 of the Irish Land Act, 1909, subsection (1) of which reads:
For the purpose of the Congested Districts Board (Ireland) Acts, as amended by this Act, each of the following administrative counties, that is to say, the counties of Donegal, Sligo, Leitrim, Roscommon, Mayo, Galway, and Kerry shall be a congested districts county, the six rural districts of Ballyvaughan, Ennistymon, Kilrush, Scariff, Tulla, and Killadysert in the county of Clare, shall together form one congested districts county, and the four rural districts of Bantry, Castletown, Schull, and Skibbereen, in the county of Cork, shall together form one congested districts county.
Those are the congested districts as defined for the purposes of the old Congested Districts Boards under the Irish Land Act, 1909. The reason for that was the fact that in those areas we had the most intense congestion and, indeed, the worst land slums in the whole country. It is for that reason also that that definition was taken in the Second Schedule. Those areas are ear-marked to be dealt with, and to go to the top of the list in the matter of priorities.
Irrespective of what Senators may say about their own counties that are outside the definition, it is in those areas that the last of the rundale estates still exist. I have said elsewhere, if not here, that those rundale estates are considered to be the hard core of the congestion problem left, and which is most difficult of solution. In those counties, generally speaking, the large estates have already been acquired, and in those rundale cases, it is a question of migrating some of the people out of them and trying to take up small portions of land that may still be there, to try to solve the problems that have proved to be virtually insoluble up to now.
I concede that there are probably pockets of congestion in every county in Ireland. I do not concede that they are as bad as they are in the counties which are scheduled in this Bill. No doubt there are bad pockets of congestion, though probably small in area, in some of these counties and it is in order to deal with these pockets that power is taken under this Bill for the Minister to schedule any area as a congested area. I do not know that it is necessary for me to remind Senators that when areas outside those specified are scheduled, the people in those areas will be entitled to the same reliefs as are provided for those already scheduled in this Bill.
I have been asked why parts of Cavan and some other counties are not scheduled. As I have stated, those scheduled are entitled to prior consideration. Down through the years, these areas have been regarded as those in most urgent need of attention from the point of view of the relief of congestion. As to when particular pockets may be declared congested under this Schedule, I informed the Dáil that the Land Commission are engaged in a general survey of congestion throughout the country. A list of lands that are vacant or have been let over a period of years is being made. Where the Land Commission decide a particular area urgently needs attention as a congested area, that area will be scheduled under this Bill and will be entitled to the same treatment as that given to the areas now covered by the Bill.
From a practical point of view it would be impossible, I think, to deal with this matter in any other way. If I were to go beyond the definition in the 1909 Act, I would have every Deputy and every Senator bringing in amendments to have every county scheduled as a congested area. Immediately the Land Commission are in the position to advise me that an area should be scheduled as congested and, so soon as we are geared to deal with such an area, the Order will be made.
I am sure Senators are aware of the urgency of this congestion problem in the areas covered in the Bill. It is certainly conceded by some Senators that these areas are undoubtedly entitled to priority and must, of course, get priority. It may well be that there are parts in some counties that should be treated as congested areas. No doubt a case can be made. If it is reported to me that any particular area should be scheduled, I shall be quite willing to do so in the next few years. It is a question of being geared to do the job, a question of trying to arrange priorities and apply the benefits of the Bill where they are most urgently needed.
Senators will appreciate that that is as far as I can go. I made this special provision to enable me, or any future Minister, to schedule any particular area as congested, irrespective of location. That should meet the point made that there are pockets of congestion everywhere. I am well aware that there are, but I contend that the traditional areas in which we have the biggest land slum problem should be treated first as a matter of urgency.
Arising out of the Minister's reply and Senator McGlinchey's contribution. I should like to put it on record that when this Bill was introduced late in 1963, the Leader of this Party, Deputy Dillon, put it on record that there were good sections in the Bill and this Party welcomed those sections; but there were also bad sections in the Bill and this Party opposed those sections and the real danger in the Bill lay in the fact that it had some good sections and many bad sections. After a 12 months' battle in the Dáil, the Bill emerged an improved Bill, improved in the sense that the freezing provisions of section 13 were reduced from 12 months to three months and section 45 was inserted in relation to the sale of lands to aliens. So much for Senator McGlinchey's contribution. Some of the good sections in the Bill—I approved of them in my Second Reading speech —are sections 5, 6 and 7.
The Senator will come back now to section 4.
Section 4 deprives County Cavan of the benefits of section 5 and section 7. It is to that deprivation I object. Apparently these congested districts were defined as far back as 1909. A great many changes have taken place since then. A considerable volume of water has gone under the bridge since then. Ways of life have changed; standards of living have changed. It is high time the Land Commission made a study of the congested areas and revised them. We have the precedent under the Undeveloped Areas Act. That Act did not apply to Cavan, but time satisfied both the Government and the Minister for Industry and Commerce that it should apply to Cavan and the Act was extended to cover County Cavan. That precedent should now be adopted in this Bill.
I do not want to be in any way offensive but to say that, just because areas were defined by an alien Government, applying different standards in 1909, the same standards should apply in 1965 is to me so much nonsense. It seems to arise out of a refusal to face up to facts. I invite the Minister and any Senator who wishes to accept the invitation to come into County Leitrim and travel across by Dowra, Swanlinbar and Ballyconnell, which comprise at least one-third of the county, into Cavan and I defy them to find any difference between the type of land or the type of holding in Leitrim and in West Cavan. That, after all, is the real test.
If what I ask is not done now, and apparently it is not going to be done, Cavan will be deprived of the benefits conferred by section 5, which enables the Land Commission to make advances to farmers to buy land for cash, and the farmers of Cavan, if they get land, will continue to pay double the annuity that people from the scheduled congested areas will be asked to pay. That is neither fair nor just, and if the Minister is endeavouring in certain sections, with which we agree, to improve matters, he should be just in his application of those sections. He should be just to the people in the counties which are entitled to the benefits of those sections.
The Minister said that if he went beyond his designation of congested areas, every Deputy would be bringing in amendments to have his area declared a congested area, but would it not be better if you had Deputies bringing amendments into the Dáil and having this done in the Parliament, where it could be debated publicly, and if necessary, a free vote taken, than to have this work done behind closed doors? The Minister must designate the congested areas on information received from somebody. I have quoted before that Mr. Moylan objected, in 1950, to the Minister making rules and regulations; we could make the same objection today. We do not know what political pressure may be brought to bear on the Minister but we all know that it will be brought because we know what has happened in regard to previous Land Acts and we know pressure can be brought on the Minister to declare certain areas congested areas so that they will get the benefits of section 5 and section 7. It would have been much better if the Minister had come in here and told us the areas he believed to be congested areas. He should have the information by now. After all, the Land Commission have been in existence for over 40 years and if they do not know by now what areas are congested, they will never know.
Senator McGlinchey's remarks were most unfair. He said we held up the Bill for over a year but Fianna Fáil also held up and opposed many parts of the 1950 Bill but the parts they opposed are still continuing and have not been altered in this Bill. It is the duty of any Opposition to make constructive suggestions such as were made in the Dáil. Because of the constructive suggestions that were made, the Minister introduced some 46 or 47 amendments to the Bill in Dáil Éireann. That proves the worth of the constructive suggestions made by the combined Opposition.
I do not think the Minister has given one good reason why a farmer living in north Longford, or certain parts of Westmeath, where there are small farms and where there is congestion, cannot now or in the near future avail of the benefits of this Bill. It is most unfair and most unjust. We know what the 1916 Proclamation said about cherishing all the people equally but surely it is not cherishing all the people equally if a person in County Longford gets a farm in County Westmeath or anywhere else and must pay the full annuity whereas across the border in Leitrim he will pay just half. Does it mean that the people in those portions of our national territory who have to contribute in rates and taxes——
I do not like to interrupt the Senator but on a point of order, we shall be debating the principles of this matter on a later section dealing with the differential annuities.
I have referred briefly to it but at the same time I am entitled to ask are these people not to be the concern and care of the Minister?
Will an order made by the Minister under subsection (2) of this section be laid before the Houses?
No, it is not provided for.
I had overlooked that and I intend to put down an amendment on Report Stage to deal with it.
In subsection (3) of section 4, which says that "the Minister may by order amend or revoke an order under subsection (1) of this section", does the word "amend" connote an intention to de-schedule an area, so to speak, once the target has been realised from the available pool of land?
Yes. Reference has been made to the Undeveloped Areas Act, 1952 and exactly the same provision is contained in that Act in section 3 which states:
This Act applies to each of the following areas:
(a) the congested areas,
(b) any other areas to which, by order of the Minister, the Act is for the time being declared to apply.
That Act was passed specifying congested areas and the Oireachtas in its wisdom passed the other section enabling the Minister concerned to apply the provisions of that Act to any area outside the congested areas where he thought there was a case made for it. Exactly the same provision is being made under this section of the Land Bill.
It can be extended to Cavan?
It can be extended to Cavan if there is a case made for it, or to any other pocket of congestion, down to a parish or a townland, if it is desirable. The fact remains, as I have already told the House, down through the years the counties we are dealing with here, the seven counties and the other specified areas of Cork and Clare, have been the areas in which we have had intense congestion and have experienced the very worse pattern of land slums and rundale. That is the reason why Governments, including the British Government, when dealing with this matter with the old Congested District Board, specifically spelled out these areas for the special treatment they received down the years. It is for these reasons that this Bill specifies these areas. However, power is being taken here to bring in any areas in respect of which the necessity arises and this will be done.
I do not think there is anything else I could usefully add. I do not want to waste the time of the House by following Senator L'Estrange about the 1950 Land Act because in due course we shall be coming to one of the most important provisions which is to repeal the stranglehold there was which precluded the Land Commission from acquring land.
The Minister misunderstood my point about the Undeveloped Areas Act. When first introduced, it contained provisions precisely the same as those in section 4 of this Bill but the years proved that it should have been applied to other counties and I think it was in 1957 or 1958 that it was applied by order to Monaghan, Cavan and Longford. My point is that when experience showed that the Undeveloped Areas Act was necessary for these counties, it is evidence that the provisions of this Bill which are applicable to congested areas should from now be applied to Cavan, Monaghan and Longford.
The provision that gives the Minister power to add counties or portions of counties to the Schedule is very wide. When the Minister for Lands makes an Order under that section, it should be laid before each House of the Oireachtas for discussion so that Deputies and Senators may have an opportunity of saying: "It is now being applied to county so-and-so; it should be equally applied to county so-and-so." I shall put down an amendment on Report Stage asking for a provision in this section making it obligatory on the Minister to lay any such order before each House.
This further shows the very bad tendency of our times to govern by Order. Here there is no excuse for the making of an Order because the Minister has stated it would be done only after long and careful investigation and following a report from the Land Commission on conditions of congestion and so on prevailing in the area concerned. Then, surely it is not asking too much that the Minister should bring in an amending Bill when such changes become necessary, which should not be more than once every three years or even less frequently.
That would mean delineation of the line to be regarded as being much freer of political pressure than it can be in present circumstances when you can have resolutions coming up from every townland and small region in the country asking that the area be scheduled as a congested district so that the people can qualify under sections 5 and 7. I cannot see what greater political pressure could be caused than this is likely to cause. I cannot see anything that could be more abused at the approach of election time. I am not saying the present Minister for Lands would abuse it.
The usual sentiment.
It creates enabling clauses which could result in abuse in the future, perhaps not in five or ten years but which could be used to win an important by-election.
Experience has taught them that things like that do not win by-elections.
Football.
It is something no Government should introduce by way of legislation. I protest against the way this House is being made into a rubber stamp, where the important work is being done behind closed doors, yielding to pressure.
There are sections in many Bills passed through this House in which there is provision made to do certain matters by Order. Under modern complexities of legislation, it would be impossible to deal with some of the matters that arise otherwise. One can visualise many things that could not be foreseen when the legislation is being enacted unless there is power given to deal with them by Order under a section of the relevant Bill. Insofar as I possibly can, I wish to leave matters flexible under this Bill to enable the Land Commission to operate effectively.
I should like Senators to realise that the whole question we are dealing with is a very complex one and that it varies from county to county and, in places, from parish to parish. In dealing with this matter, Senators seem to be under some apprehension that orders would be made by a Minister for Lands for wrong and venal reasons. I am satisfied that some of the areas which are included in the Bill and scheduled on Land Commission recommendations could probably be excluded from the provisions of the Bill. I am thinking of parts of certain counties scheduled here which, to my knowledge, have already been fairly well dealt with, where there is not the intense congestion we have in other parts of the same counties.
As I have said, in endeavouring to make the regulations as flexible as possible to enable the Land Commission to deal with all situations, there is need for provisions of this kind. Under this procedure it will be possible for the Land Commission to recommend that the provisions of this Bill be applied to a particular parish or townland. It might be an isolated village but it may be necessary to apply this provision enabling one or two people to deal with their own congestion problems, to get out and buy holdings outside. Should such a proposition be put up by the local officer of the Land Commission, this provision enables us to schedule such an isolated village so that it would qualify for the facilities available under this section.
In considering the practical operation of this Bill, I do not see the necessity for making provision that these Orders should be laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas. They would, in my view, largely deal with administrative problems depending on local needs and on Land Commission recommendations in respect of particular areas. Needless to say, there is no doubt that questions will be asked in the Dáil from time to time as to whether any Order has been made under the power given in this section.
I visualise this power as something which will be used administratively from time to time by the Land Commission and, indeed, I cannot visualise its being used in any other way than on the recommendation of the Land Commission in dealing with local areas. I do not concede that there is any danger of this power being used in any way by any Minister for Lands. It may well be there will be representations from local officials of the Land Commission in counties outside the scheduled areas that an Order should be made in respect of townlands in their areas. Such an Order would automatically be made, as a matter of administration, by the political head of the Department.
On the other hand, we have here under the Schedule the old congested areas, listing the places where we know there is real need for this relief. We know they are the areas where there are the most intense land congestion and rundale problems. These are the areas in which from our experience we have most of the vacant or let lands, because of the uneconomic units concerned. It is from these areas we have the most emigration because of the land slum problem there. It is for those reasons that these areas should get priority. The House should be satisfied, because of the power that is there, to apply these very same relief measures to any pocket of congestion anywhere outside these areas, should it be so recommended.
Under this Bill—indeed already, in anticipation of this Bill—there is tremendous pressure on the Land Commission staff. We are building up to get geared to the very extended work that is arising and will arise under this Bill. We must concentrate what we have in order to deal with the places entitled to priority treatment, which are the congested areas under this Bill. It is my view and the view of my advisers that there will be a tremendous amount of extra work on the Land Commission machine, both on the intake side and otherwise, under the provisions of this Bill. We have to deal first with the counties in which this tremendous problem exists. It would be wrong simply to forget about this definition of the congested areas, because you cannot justify bringing in a portion of this county or that county.
The only alternative to sticking to this Schedule and to this priority is to declare the whole of our country a congested area. That would be dishonest on our part in so far as it would mislead people into believing that it would be possible to deal with them immediately under this Bill. Secondly, it would get our priorities mixed, because those familiar with the problem of these intensely congested districts know there is no comparison in reality between them and the outside counties, generally speaking. In fact, as I said on the Second Reading in this House, as far as the build-up by the Land Commission was concerned, there was one standard for the rest of the country and a different one for the congested areas.
Any persons in the congested areas, as defined under this Bill, who were brought up to a valuation of £10 or near it were written off by the Land Commission, whereas in areas elsewhere—say, east of the Shannon— they were entitled to be considered up to £30 or £35 valuation. Different standards were applied down through the years, with the result that we have areas I am familiar with in the west where the people were vested and a patchwork of rearrangement was done on a valuation of £2 10s. or £3. These are still left there. In other words, on present day judgments, the Land Commission or their predecessors, the Congested Districts Board, could be accused of creating further land slums.
These problems must be dealt with as a matter of urgency. I think the only way to tackle this and get our priorities right is in the manner I have indicated to the House. As far as I have told the Dáil that, where a suggestion comes up from the local Land Commission office that any area, should be declared a congested area, providing they are able to deal with it on that basis, then an order would be made administratively, either by me or by anybody who may follow me as political head of the Department.
Now I have worse fears than I had earlier. We all know that in the past power has been abused and can be abused by the political head of a Department. The Minister earlier said that a townland could be declared a congested area on the recommendation of the local Commissioner dealing with the local area. In his concluding remarks, the Minister repeated that. I think that is a most dangerous precedent, because you can have local political pressure being brought to bear on a particular Land Commissioner in a particular area to have that area declared a congested area. I would be satisfied if the Minister would tell us he would declare an area a congested area only on the recommendation of the Secretary of the Commission or a senior inspector. It is completely wrong that any Minister of State should declare any area a congested area on the recommendation of the local Land Commissioner. It is open to far too much political pressure and persuasion. We all know what happened in the past with the political heads of Departments.
What happened?
Nobody knows better than the Senator. It could happen in the future.
I am sick and tired sitting in this seat listening to this innuendo from the Fine Gael side about political pressure by the political head of a Department. If this is to be persisted in, we should get down to cases and names. There is absolutely no foundation for this story.
I will give Senator L'Estrange the information Senator Ó Maoláin asked for. His colleague on the front bench, Senator Lindsay, when the Coalition Government were in power, got 30 acres of land from the Land Commission. Therefore, that power was abused.
When one considers that this schedule of congested areas was made up as far back as 1909, it gives one a lot of food for thought. Has the position remained absolutely static since? Is every area found to be congested in 1909 still congested? Has none of those areas been relieved? Has there been no movement of population out of some of these areas into other areas? Is the same standard being applied to congestion in 1965 as was applied in 1909? Surely standards are different? Surely there have been changes in ways of living? Surely there has been a change in what might be described as an economic holding? This is slavishly following a pattern worked out in 1909 in entirely different circumstances for people living in entirely different conditions. I refuse to believe that the conditions in 1965 are exactly similar to the conditions that prevailed in 1909.
There should be some fresh approach to this question of the congested district. It would be unreasonable to declare the entire country a congested district. That would be going much too far. I have mentioned Counties Cavan, Monaghan and Longford. I fail to see how County Cavan can be considered wealthier or less congested than, say, County Roscommon. That is one thing that has always puzzled me. I am not saying there is anything sinister about it but there must have been a wrong approach to things in 1909 which the Minister is quite prepared to follow and accept in the year 1965. We have had law reform here and old Bills have been scrapped on being considered out of date. This definition is very much out of date and needs to be brought up to date and this Bill is a good opportunity for doing so.
The Minister expects to receive recommendations from his inspectors within the next 12 months. Has he received no recommendations or reports within the past five years saying that some of these areas I have referred to today should not be treated as congested districts? The whole thing is puzzling. It is well over 54 years since this schedule was drawn up and I leave it to the Seanad and to the country to say whether it is reasonably applicable to conditions as we find them today.
In the explanatory memorandum circulated after the passing of the Bill by the Dáil, it is set out that section 4, in conjunction with the Second schedule, defines the congested areas for the purposes of sections 5 and 7. There has been a lot of talk here in connection with the section and the political and other implications that might be involved in the use of the powers the Minister seeks to declare an area a congested area. It appears to me that the main purposes of section 4 in defining the congested areas as scheduled in the Bill are to deprive people outside those areas of the benefits to be obtained from sections 5 and 7. That is my biggest objection to the schedule of congested districts
It baffles my comprehension why we should have counties like Longford— and I know it very well—not designated as a congested district in the same way as County Leitrim. I find very little difference between Longford and Leitrim in that respect. The reason I object strenuously to section 4 is the fact that its main purpose is to deprive the people of the rest of the country of the benefits of sections 5 and 7.
In the Dáil we had suggestions from Deputies on every side that there were pockets of congestion in their particular constituencies, irrespective of where they were situated. So also we have had them here. We have had Senator Fitzpatrick making a case that one area be brought in and another Senator making a case for Cavan. I have no doubt that every Senator from a rural area will make a similar case for the inclusion of some portion at least of his particular county.
I would ask Senators to take a fresh approach to this matter. This is exactly what we are doing in this Bill. Our conception in 1965 is that a family holding differs radically from the position in 1909. I have been emphasising here and elsewhere the utter futility of asking people in these areas to accept the family standard of living of their grandfathers on valuations of £2 worth of snipe grass.
The basic congested area is the same.
The idea is to get away from that situation and to create a people soundly based on our land in present conditions. That is what this Bill is intended to achieve-to build up, where feasible, reasonable family farms, the national objective being to have 40 to 45 acres of reasonably good land where it can be achieved.
As far as County Cavan is concerned, no doubt there are pockets of congestion there but those who examined this question long before I was born must have decided that if the congestion were much more intense in such counties than are scheduled under this Bill they were scheduled under the Act of 1909. It may well be that portion of Cavan may be one of the places to be dealt with at an early date by having it scheduled under this Bill. It is erroneous to think that we will not lead ourselves astray by making comparisons between Cavan and places like County Roscommon. I am prepared to concede that in parts of County Roscommon—let it be the east or north-east-there are large holdings. There is a situation there similar to that in County Westmeath, whereas in the western portion of County Roscommon there are people on very poor holdings like their neighbours across the border in County Mayo. The same can be said of County Galway. In East Galway, there are large farmers with good land as far as land goes in the west of Ireland. There are good tillage farmers there. There is utterly different country in west Galway, out in Connemara. It is like another world.
These comparisons vary, as I have already pointed out, from county to county, from parish to parish and from townland to townland. There will no doubt be a case made to exclude some of the areas from the provisions of this Bill. I have no doubt that if we did not accept this definition in the 1909 Act for the reasons I have stated, there would be only one way of dealing with it, that is, to make the Act applicable to the whole country. Senators might very wisely say that could not be, that it would be an impossible proposition. All I can say to the House is that my own intention, as well as that of my advisers, is to apply this section to any area where it is feasible to apply it and where it is necessary. That, again, will be done and can only be done by the Land Commission when they are in a position and empowered to do so.
I have been asked whether I did not know where congestion is and whether I did not get representations about County Cavan. I do not believe there is a county in the country from which I have not received representations about the relief of congestion. I am sure there are very few experienced Senators in any constituency in Ireland who have not had representations made to them about some particular aspect of land congestion. We will come later to the section dealing with differentiation but let me say that I have had deputations from Carlow and various other counties to assure me that the people would be delighted if the Land Commission would step in and take the land and divide it amongst them and that they would be fully prepared to pay the full cost to the State instead of paying £20 and £25 a year in conacre as they have been doing. I have had representations to that effect, week in, week out, since I became Minister for Lands. However, discussion on that particular differentiation would be more appropriate on a later section.
By and large, I had the same arguments as have been made here on this section in the Dáil. The Dáil seemed to be generally satisfied that this was the one way to tackle the matter and I certainly could not see any other basis for tackling this matter and establishing the order of priorities unless, as I have said, I made this Bill applicable to the whole country, irrespective of the conditions in any county.
I think I can probably raise this issue at this point. I should like to know how amendment No. 1 really involves any charge on State funds. I understood that section 5 was a businesslike arrangement.
The Chair has ruled that amendment No. 1 is out of order and that matter is disposed of.
I bow to your ruling.
We are now on amendment No. 2.
I move amendment No. 2:
In subsection (4) (a), line 59, to add at the end:
"and has not hitherto been resettled or improved by the Land Commission, or is less than the equivalent of 30 acres of arable land, and has not hitherto been resettled or improved by the Land Commission."
I should like, with your permission, to have the amendment taken in two stages because there are two separate ideas involved. The first involves a qualification of subclause (a) of subsection (4) and the second introduces a new category of persons who would be eligible for the benefits under section 5. Perhaps I could have a ruling to the effect that those two matters could be discussed separately because they are completely independent and distinct ideas?
The Senator should proceed on the basis of amendment No. 2.
Then I shall take, first of all, the case for the first idea involved in the amendment. There is set out in section 5 a list of benefits. I am not yet clear on this matter. I hope, before we are finished with the section, that the Minister will be able to make clear what are the benefits under section 5. But, presuming that there are some benefits available under section 5 other than are obtainable at present through other channels, I suggest that the section should not be applied in any way to induce people to give up holdings on which they are settled and on which they are capable of carrying on reasonable farming.
The operation of the section should be limited, in the first place, to holdings that have not been resettled by the Land Commission because, in order to qualify under (a), (b) and (c) of subsection (4), the holding must be located in a pocket of congestion so as to be suitable, in the opinion of the Land Commission, for land settlement purposes. So, the holding then is to be split up between adjacent holdings. Otherwise, if it is just a case of a holding being passed on intact to somebody else and the owner moving to a larger farm, I do not see that that in any way helps to solve the problem of congestion in the area. We must take it, therefore, that the holding is to be broken up.
I should like to see, then, that the section is not used to encourage or to facilitate the break-up of farms that have already been set up by the Land Commission because that would be undoing the work of the past where these holdings have been created and buildings have been erected on the holdings and the holdings consist of something in the region of 25 to 30 acres. Therefore, there should be a limit on this that the land has not hitherto been resettled by the Land Commission.
The most precious possessions we have are our farms. Consequently, the announcement by the Government that the farms that have been set up for the past 20 years are uneconomic and can be made economic only by the addition of land might be called today an agricultural heresy. The Minister, when replying to the Second Reading debate, gave the answer. He quoted from a report he had received as to what happened on a series of 30-acre farms in Kildare where there was an average family income of from £700 to £1,000 per annum—in other words, quite a substantial income—proving that, when managed properly, farms of the size mentioned in Kildare, on average equivalent to 30 to 33 acres of first-class land, are economic holdings and are capable of giving a decent livelihood. What is required, therefore, is just the influx of capital. I am surprised that the Minister in his reply could have said — column 364, Volume 58:
I am sure if Senator Quinlan were here he would find it hard to accept that this can be achieved on these compact units.
The whole tenor of my submission on Second Reading was that this was possible. Consequently, I appeal to the Minister not to do anything under any section, but especially under section 5 with which we are concerned at the moment, to break up farms that have been set up by the Land Commission and which only need at the moment for proper functioning an adequate supply of capital.
The Minister and the Government will find it far more economical to provide that capital than to chase after this idea that such farms can prosper only by the addition of acres.
The second point involved in the amendment is that what is offered here should be available to people outside the congested districts. The second part of the amendment proposes an alternative to the farm being situated in a congested area: "or is less than the equivalent of 30 acres of arable land and has not hitherto been resettled or improved by the Land Commission". The effect of my amendment there would be to make whatever advantages are provided under section 5 available to small-holders everywhere who satisfy conditions (a), (b) and (c) of the section.
I cannot see why the Government should discriminate between people in such conditions. The smallholder in one place is as much entitled to Government help as a smallholder anywhere else in the country. I just do not know what the position really is under section 4 because the Minister went so far as to say that if there were sufficient representations from the local Land Commission offices, the area or townland could, by order, be included.
Take a farmer in a local pocket who satisfies conditions (a), (b) and (c), and has an opportunity of buying a place elsewhere. If the local Land Commission certify that this man has a farm that could be broken up between the adjoining places, does that mean that the Minister will make an individual Order covering the small townland in which that small farm is situated or is the Minister to stand by and leave what is total discrimination and is, I think, against the Constitution—that the man on 25 acres in Cavan should be treated differently from the man with 25 acres in Mayo or with 25 acres in the Glen of Aherlow, all places where you have pretty similar conditions?
I appeal, then, to the Minister for the two points at issue—(1) to ensure that this section is not used for the break-up of any farm set up by the Land Commission and handed over by the Land Commission in the past 30 years to a tenant as a viable holding and (2) that whatever advantages are in this section should be available to all, whether or not they are from areas scheduled congested districts provided they satisfy the same requirements of (a), (b) and (c)—being in the heart of a pocket of congestion, their place being capable of helping that congestion, and agreeing to hand over to the Land Commission for that purpose and in accordance with my amendment here not previously having in any way been resettled by the Land Commission.
Senator Quinlan should remember that there was a time when the holdings that were given out were too small. I remember that in one case they actually gave out what were not much more than market gardens. I have one particular place in mind—ten acres. The man who laid down policy for the Land Commission at the time knew nothing whatever about rural conditions: he is gone now. He was thinking of what might happen in Holland or in Rush where ten acres might make too big a holding. Here we had ten-acre farms: that was done by the Land Commission. If that sort of thing lasted, it would not do at all. I am glad to say that the particular case I have in mind was rectified. I made representations to the Land Commission and pointed out that here was a case where I thought there were about ten holders of ten acres each. A big farm happened to be available and a plan had already been drawn up to bring in migrants. I made the case that before doing that, they should make sure that the people with ten acres got at least double that amount and that was done. Do not, for heaven's sake, say that because the Land Commission did something 30 years ago they should not alter it.
On the last occasion, I pointed out here that when I was made Minister for Lands, I appealed to the Government to make 30 acres of arable land or its equivalent the recognised economic holding at the time, but I was overruled. A sub-committee was set up. One of the members was a member for Mayo and of course £10 valuation was quite a big farm in Mayo but it certainly was not in Roscommon or in other places. It would be altogether wrong for the Land Commission not to have the right to interfere again in cases where they have already dealt in the circumstances which I have mentioned.
This amendment is unacceptable since its effect must be to restrict part of this section. Many hundreds of holdings in the congested areas have been rearranged and resettled in the past by the Congested Districts Board and by the Land Commission but to low-size standards. That was the best that could be done at that time. The effect of the Senator's amendment would now be to exclude all those owners from directly benefiting under the section.
It is undesirable to impose a statutory maximum limit on the holding which would qualify the owner for self-migration under the section. The Senator quoted me at column 364. What I referred to there was achieved by those migrants in Kildare but he did not quote what I went on to say-that this could not have been achieved by those people on rundale estates in the west. The place is not there for them: the land is not of that quality.
Again, in dealing with this matter, might I remind Senators of the vast difference in providing what should be a family holding depending (1) on the type of land we have and (2) on the availability of markets and the suitability of that land for supplying these markets? A man may do very well out here in Rush, beside Dublin, on five acres whereas the same man would starve to death on five acres on Achill Island. That is the best illustration I can give of how dangerous it is to generalise on this question of size.
Senator Quinlan may be under a misapprehension about this matter. He may not be familiar with what has happened in the congested areas. This particular provision is not meant fundamentally to deal with people established by the Land Commission on migrants' holdings, the vast majority of which have been established over here, east of the Shannon. It is true that a number of people were established on migrant holdings by the old Congested Districts Board years ago and indeed many of these holdings, while they would have been acceptable then to a literally starving people, would not be acceptable today, and are not acceptable today.
The Senator also may not be aware that under his amendment, as I read it, if there were an improvement, it would cut out any holding that had been, as he says, either resettled or improved by the Land Commission. Under that provision, we would simply nullify the whole provisions of this Bill as far as the congested areas are concerned, In the vast majority of these cases they at least have got a turbary right, which would preclude them, because their holdings were improved.
It is well known to anybody who lives in a congested area or who is familiar with congested pockets there that in very many instances the Congested Districts Board or the Land Commission just dealt with whatever few little patches or pieces that were available to them at the time and got maybe a partial rearrangement and vested them at valuations of £2 or £2 10s. It is in many of these cases that the doors are locked and the people gone because they could not exist in modern conditions there. In all these cases, under the Senator's amendment they would be prevented from benefiting from these particular provisions. So, I think that the Senator perhaps does not understand what has happened down through the years in some of these congested areas, that whereas there may have been what one might call improvements either by the old CDB or by the Land Commission, the position is still that they are land slums urgently calling out for relief.
I do not know what exactly the Senator means when he suggests, to use his own words, that the Land Commission should not induce a man to give up his holding for the relief of his neighbours and to go elsewhere. The main provisions of this Bill are designed to induce people on uneconomic holdings to give up their land for the relief of their neighbours, and many of the provisions, including the self-migratory provisions, are there to induce people who are living in pockets of congestion to improve their own lot and surrender their holdings to the Land Commission for the relief of their neighbours. There are also the provisions dealing with the pensioning off of old and incapacitated landowners, and so forth.
All these provisions and indeed a very large number of the provisions of the Land Acts down through the years have been designed to induce people to deal with the Land Commission and surrender their lands for the relief of their neighbours. The hard core of the rundale estates and the worst land slums we have in these areas are still there because the Land Commission found them impossible to solve, mainly by reason of the fact that they could not induce some of the people to cooperate in a resettlement scheme or to take migrant's holdings. In respect of many of these areas, we are still waiting for these powers in the hope of solving the problem of these rundale estates.
In many of these cases there is only one solution. In a village where there are perhaps 25 people on land—if one could call it land, mainly cut away bog—of valuation £2, £3, or £4, some of these holdings consist of 40 different inter-mixed plots of less than a rood or half a rood in extent. Senators would want to see some of these places to realise what must be done. In such a case, two or three must be induced to leave and take migrants' holdings and particularly what we call the keyman in the area, that is, the man whose holding is so inter-mixed with those of his neighbours that it would be impossible to create compact units unless he is got out. These inducement sections are there for that purpose.
I cannot quite comprehend, therefore, what is in the Senator's mind when he makes the proposition here that when a man is living on a holding in one of these congested pockets, the Land Commission should not induce him to leave. In some of the cases to which I have referred, the only solution for these areas is to get these people to give up their holdings for the relief of their neighbours. Perhaps the Senator has in mind that it is desirable to keep as many people as possible on the land. Of course it is. We all agree with that proposition and our Constitution provides for it. We are endeavouring to make that possible under this Bill and to stop continuous emigration from these areas.
It is not this type of legislation that depopulates these areas. In many instances the people have already gone from these areas and it is to get these vacant lands and to give people a reasonable hope of survival that we are legislating here. The Land Commission could also be accused of depopulating these areas because down through the years hundreds and hundreds of these people have been migrated by the Land Commission to new holdings, both in the congested areas and across the Shannon to the eastern part of the country. That went on even before the establishment of this State but certainly it has been intensified since the establishment of the State. That has been the national policy because it is the only solution of our congestion problems and it is also, I may say, the solution being applied by other countries where there are congestion problems such as we have.
This amendment is unacceptable because it would immediately prohibit the Land Commission from applying the benefits of this Bill to the hundreds of people who are in need of these benefits in the intensely congested areas.
We had better get down to defining fundamentals here. I have made my position on this quite clear and there is no need for any "mist that does be on the bog" in order to put over the position which I have taken up, which I shall continue to hold and which is stated clearly at column 245, volume 58 of the Seanad Debates of 20th January, 1965:
We have to face the problem of the 80,000 holdings that have not been improved since 1923 by direct action of the Land Commission. These should be treated as a first priority now and the holders should get whatever land the Land Commission will be able to acquire under this Bill when it becomes law. Because of the fragmentation of these holdings one cannot even get a base upon which to build upwards unless one can consolidate the holdings and increase them in size to whatever extent is possible in the particular localities.
That is my position and there is no need for anyone to misrepresent it and to say I am trying to suggest we should perpetuate the type of rundale conditions the Minister described and which we all know exist. I am asking that these be given first priority. As regards the size of holding as mentioned by Senator Boland, mistakes can have been made in the past and naturally there should be some lower limit to what is meant by "improved by the Land Commission" and also certain flexibility in size.
What I am worried about is this. Take an area that had been settled by the Land Commission in the past into 25 and 30 acre farms, like the ones described by the Minister in County Kildare where by co-operation and working together, they have produced a very flourishing community and are doing excellent work. Because the Government made the mistake of declaring 40 to 45 acres as the standard for a viable farm, therefore by definition these areas are now congested areas and if the Land Commission inspector recommended it, he could by Order designate that townland as a congested district within the meaning of the Act.
If those 30 acre holdings are congested, then it follows, in order to bring them up to 40 acres, one in every three of them must be extinguished and the owners must clear out in order that the 30 acres can be divided into three parcels of ten acres between their immediate neighbours. That would be a very wrong development and it is one which is highly possible under this section. It is a very wrong development because the same increase in income on those farms could be obtained by increasing the capital on them. How often do we need to say that you can produce the same results if you have a good size farm with capital to begin with? You must have some base to begin with. Every agricultural expert from the Agricultural Institute down can tell you the return you can get from that and the steps to be taken in developing it.
The first steps have been taken in Kildare where there is a milk enterprise primarily. The other steps which have been taken naturally are the provision of large pig units. There is no limit to the amount of those that can be put on the farm. There is just a capital limit as many will have seen from the television programme last Sunday. That is the type of development we want to see encouraged and we want the Land Commission and the Minister to get on with the job. That is the way to settle the rundale problem. The holdings which have not been touched are ones which are still below the limit. You want to get on with that problem immediately. Indeed, we cannot be very proud of the way we have tackled it to date.
The report of the Land Commission for 1963 shows in that year 1,500 were dealt with and there were still 18,000 remaining to be dealt with. At the rate of the 1,500 dealt with, we can figure out how long it will take to deal with the 18,000. It is said now that all those farms will have to be brought up to much bigger acreage which means, as the Minister stated in his opening speech, that previously where six or eight could be improved in a locality by the division of a farm, now only three or four can be dealt with. Therefore, the same lands which helped 1,500 in 1963 today would be used up in helping only 700 or 800. How then can we get round to the 18,000 which have not been helped?
The cost of land is increasing and it would take a considerable sum to cater effectively for those 18,000 in a reasonable period. We have a right to ask that a comprehensive programme be initiated to deal with this task. We have been looking at this problem for too long. We have been dealing with this during 30 years since we got our independence and during all that time all these people have been living on promises. We now complicate the picture by bringing in the people who have already got 25 to 30 acres.
That is the purpose of this amendment and it is in that spirit I have put it down. If the word "improved" is not suitable, perhaps the Minister, if he accepts the viewpoint expressed, would bring in an amendment that will meet the necessary restriction. In other words, you can have a minimum acreage. I want to preserve the fruits of those farms which we have seen in Kildare and elsewhere. You can do that on the 30 acre farms if they get the necessary capital.
Senator Quinlan mentioned Kildare. I have nothing against County Kildare but this amendment relates to section 5 which deals with people in the congested areas to enable them to get out of those areas so that there will be more land left for those who are still there. It has nothing at all to do with County Kildare or with the good land of Cork mentioned by Senator Quinlan. There is no use simply putting capital on the land in Connemara and Mayo. The only thing you can do is to try to get those people more land.
That is the whole point. The Minister has been very nebulous and vague about what is meant by congested areas under section 4. He can meet a representation from the local Land Commission officer and can designate any townland as a congested area on the recommendation of the Land Commission. Consequently, many of these areas in Kildare and elsewhere could be designated as congested areas if the local inspector got an idea that it would be nice to bring all those up to 40 acres and to extinguish one farm in every three.
That is the type of thing I want to prevent by this amendment and it is something which should be guarded against if we value having as many people as we can on the land of this country and building up good farms. We cannot build round because we have the Atlantic ocean around us. There are unlimited preserves of prairie land to be taken for the asking. You must build them up. We have a long way to go in building them up when we look at what is done in other countries.
The trade unions are fighting to get a minimum wage for all agricultural workers of somewhere around £10.
It is £12 now.
That will provide about £700 per year. There is a vast difference between the standard of living of people living in the city and of those living in the country. We cannot squander more good land for factory sites.
If Senator Quinlan reads subsection (2) of section 4, he will understand there is no possibility of making good land into congested areas. The type of farm in the areas will have to be taken into account. It is quite clear the Minister must have some regard to what is congested in other parts of the country.
Surely the Minister, if he wishes, under section 4 of the Bill, can, on the recommendation of the local Land Commission officer, designate any townland as a congested district. Surely he can do that under this subsection (2).
When these figures are being thrown about, I should probably say that a more realistic figure for congests would be in the region of 50,000. I think the Senator is drawing on his imagination in saying that the Land Commission are going out horse, foot and artillery to give more land to successful migrants on 30 acre units of good land. We are dealing with a different type of people and I was careful to point out, when giving these figures, that could not possibly be achieved in the case of the people in the congested areas to which I have referred. I do not think that there is anything nebulous or vague about what I said here or elsewhere in connection with this Bill. To assume that the Land Commission inspectors or Land Commissioners are so utterly divorced from reality that they would advise any Minister to schedule some area where the people already have very good holdings, such as those to which I have referred, is simply asking Senators to ignore realities.
The Land Commission are concerned, since they were set up, to deal with the congestion problem and that is their fundamental duty. They have already devoted sufficient time to the question of the priorities in land division. I do not know the purpose of this amendment and I do not intend to follow the Senator in his theory about building up, as he says, instead of building out and about the possibilities of a tremendously increased income for people on the land by certain capital investment. No doubt we could grow oranges in Connemara if we roofed it with glass and provided the necessary heat but it would be at considerable cost, I imagine. That aspect of the Senator's economics does not particularly appeal to me in discussing the class of people we are dealing with here, that is, people on very small valuations on tenth-rate land, a great deal of it being cutaway bog, who are mainly located in very isolated areas, far away from markets and in respect of whose farming economy, outside improving whatever little land they have, it is very difficult to help them even with the best will in the world unless they have a larger unit.
In the vast majority of cases, these people have to work intensely the little patches of land they have in order to survive as they are. They must make the best use of their traditional skill and endeavour to get the utmost output from their holdings. While in some cases they could possibly benefit by more keenly following the advice of their local instructors about fertilisers and so on, in the vast majority of cases the possibility of those people expanding their economy is relatively negligible unless they get a larger unit. It is for the purpose of dealing with these people that this Bill is here.
I do not think the Minister has faced the issue here. I stated my position and it is on record that by all means the people the Minister speaks about should have first priority. I want to ensure that the Government statement that all those who are below the 40-45 acre level are entitled to apply for land, shall be seen for what it is, something designed to make the solution of the rundale problem much harder. It is something which admits of a solution only by sending 100,000 of our farmers to England. That is the solution being propounded and we should awaken the country to its implications before it is too late.
I do not see much point in pressing this amendment further but I intend to raise it again on the Report Stage when I shall have an opportunity of studying much more carefully the written words of the Minister on section 4 which has a very important bearing on the present section.
I should like to refer, for the purpose of strengthening my thesis, to something which I said earlier and which the Minister—I cannot understand how —so greatly misinterpreted. On the last day I quoted the case of the small holdings in Italy. The quotation I gave was from an editorial in Christus Rex in April, 1963, which absolutely condemned the present land policy of the Government and pointed out that the only upshot of it would simply be the dispossession of 100,000 from the land and at column 239 of volume 58 I used the quotation from Christus Rex where it says:
In which connection it should be noted that, in Italy, despite the fact that the agrarian reform policy there is the most far-reaching in the free world, no attempt has been made— by reason of the complexity of the problem which it would raise—to diminish the number of small holdings in the country.
I added my own comment afterwards that a small holding in Italy is something much smaller than anything we have here. That was my only reference to the conditions in Italy. Yet the Minister again and again returned to it in his final speech. At column 381 of volume 58 he says, referring to the building up of a pool of land for the relief of congestion:
It has been suggested, I think, by Senator Quinlan that in other countries this does not happen, and he referred particularly to Italy. I do not know anything about Italy but in the other countries of Western Europe I know of. they have a law, and a very strict law about land user.
I said no such thing. In fact, the land programme in Italy, as I think everybody knows who has properly read up the subject, is the most advanced in Europe, the big estates being broken up. Yet the Minister went on to say at column 382:
Senator Quinlan suggested that the land owners in Italy were not vulnerable, that they were not touched at all and that they were completely sacrosanct as far as their land units were concerned.
I said no such thing. In fact, these units are being broken up at an increasingly rapid rate and a very fine job in land reform is being done, rather belatedly admittedly, since the last war.
The Minister goes on to say:
I cannot see that there is any comparison between the farmers in southern Italy ...
I need go no further: Senators can read it for themselves but I want to put my position on record. With that, I think, I shall withdraw the amendment, with the right to raise it again, as I intend, on the Report Stage so that the Minister will have a chance to think it over in the meantime and see the purpose of the amendment which is to ensure that all our efforts and energies are devoted to the solution of the rundale problem and not spent in urging farmers to build out when they can build up and get the same advantage for themselves and benefit the country enormously.
I move amendment No. 3:
In subsection (4), page 5, to delete paragraph (b) and substitute:
"( ) suitable, in the opinion of the Land Commission, for land resettlement purposes for the relief of congestion on adjoining holdings that have not hitherto been resettled or improved by the Land Commission."
The points I wish to make on this amendment have already been made by me in connection with the other amendments. Where a settlement has already been achieved on the basis of 25 or 30 acre farms, this amendment is to prevent the section being applied to bring their level up to 40 or 45 acres by the extinguishing of a number of farms. That should not be done. We should value our numbers in this regard and people should not be transplanted from their farms to Manchester or Birmingham.
Let me point out again that if this amendment were accepted, it would prevent certain people from participating in the benefits of this Bill. As I have said already, anyone who got rights of turbary would be precluded. It would be completely impracticable. It would be confined to the case of an adjoining holding, and would prevent someone half a mile away from participating. Generally speaking, some benefit has been received from the Congested District Boards in respect of cases that have been vested under the Land Acts. There are now only some 11,000 cases left to be vested. Some of the 11,000 non-vested cases may have derived some benefit. In the vast majority of vested cases, some benefit by way of improvement has been given and if this amendment were accepted, it would mean those people would have to live in the land slums. Because they got turbary, or because roads or drains were made for them by the Land Commission, they would be precluded from being dealt with under the provisions of this Bill.
When we come to the proposition the Senator has argued on this and the other amendment, we will no doubt have more theorising. All I can say is that I should love to see some of those people who tell us how to live in those congested areas on valuations of £2, £3 or £4 trying to live on units of snipe grass. The armchair theorists tell us that can so easily be done by those unfortunate people.
The Minister has returned again to the snipe grass. I suppose it is not necessary to put my statement in this regard on record again. I have already said that no one is being asked to live on snipe grass. I take pride in being classed with the armchair theorists, because I regard Father McDyer and Peadar O'Donnell as the real hope for the salvation of the west. They are the realists. Their opinions are valid even though they are not working on the land. They see and are concerned with the depopulation that is taking place, and they know that if a reasonable effort were made, it could be stopped and once again the west would begin to flourish. It will flourish, because it has got those leaders now. I am proud to go on record as supporting those leaders, and I shall help them in every way possible in the furtherance of their cause. It ill becomes the Minister not to recognise the valuable national work Father McDyer, Peadar O'Donnell and their band of helpers are doing.
I have not been dealing with Father McDyer or the Charlestown Committee, but with the good Senator Quinlan.
In withdrawing the amendment, I should like to put on record that——
It might be better simply to withdraw it.
——I stand over any fact or figure I gave. I am prepared to go to any State Department and discuss these figures. We have a duty in this House to give the facts, whether or not they are palatable to those in authority. We have to face the situation as we see it. Otherwise we would be members of an adulation society for the powers that be.
This is a good section. This is a section of which we approve, and have approved since the Bill was first introduced. It is one of the good sections in the Bill. The Minister has been contemplating introducing this Bill for a considerable time. It is now nearly two years since he circulated it, and I imagine it must have been in course of consideration in his Department for some years before that. It is a pity he did not work out what areas section 5 would apply to before the Bill becomes law.
I rise to repeat the case I made on section 4. There are areas in this country which are entitled to the benefits of section 5 which will be deprived of those benefits indefinitely. I refer in particular to the counties with which I am well acquainted, Cavan, Monaghan and Longford. I repeat that those counties on second consideration were given the benefits of the Undeveloped Areas Act. It is now obvious that in so far as this section is concerned those counties are to be put on the long finger. Cavan, Monaghan and Longford are to be told: "Live horse and you will get grass."
There is plenty of machinery in the Department. There are resident inspectors in each county who could have been consulted before this. Apparently they will be consulted afterwards. I cannot see any case at all for depriving these three counties of the benefits that will accrue to the rest of the country through this section. The Minister has made no case. The Department have simply put up their hands, taken down a ready-made definition which some of their predecessors worked out in 1909, and said: "We will stick this in the Bill and see what happens afterwards." I say that is not a proper approach to the relief of congestion in this country. It is not the proper approach for people living in actually congested districts as distinct from statutory congested districts. This section will be applied to statutory congested districts without any reference to what I describe as actually congested districts.
Subsection (3) (b) of this section provides:
No fee or other payment shall be charged or imposed by the Registry of Deeds in respect of any document which is necessary for or in relation to an advance under this section.
The subsection immediately before that relieves certain instruments from stamp duty. I should like to ask, out of curiosity really, why are the Land Registry and the Land Commission excluded under subsection (3) (b) while the Registry of Deeds is included. If one wants a document from the Registry of Deeds, a certified copy of a memorial, a search, or anything of that nature, one will get it for nothing, but, if one wants a document, which will serve the same purpose, from the Land Commission, one will have to pay for it, and one will have to pay for it from the Land Registry. Presumably, while stamp duty will not be charged on these documents, one will have to pay fees in the Land Registry. I should like the Minister to tell us how these provisions have been arrived at. What is the underlying theory?
I should like verification in relation to one point. I refer to subsection (2) (b) (vii). Subsection (2) (a) reads:
The Minister may, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, make regulations for the purpose of giving effect to this section and any such regulations may include such supplemental or incidental provisions as appear to the Minister to be expedient.
And subsection (2) (b) (vii) reads:
the application of such existing provisions in the Land Purchase Acts or the Land Reclamation Act, 1949, as the Minister deems necessary....
Surely the Minister would have no authority to declare any section of the Land Purchase Acts or the Land Reclamation Act as inapplicable? How can he suggest, as it is suggested here, that the Minister may apply some sections of these Acts and not apply others? It is obligatory on him to implement all the provisions of the Land Purchase Acts.
This section intrigues me. It is a very good section, but how exactly will it be applied? It reads well. If an ambitious man in the congested districts has a small holding and he gets information about a nice 45 acre farm for sale in the midlands, or somewhere like that, he will get in touch with the Land Commission. It baffles me how all this will be done so that a loan can be made available to him. His lands will have to be inspected. The inspector may be quite satisfied to take over the holding for Land Commission purposes. All that will take time and we know that a small farm does not remain very long on the market. Who will determine the amount of the loan? I can see difficulties.
I agree the section is a good one but having a good section in the Bill, if the section is not capable of implementation, results in making what should be a good Bill a bad Bill. We all know the jungle of red tape through which one must cut in matters of this kind where loans, or grants, or advances, or anything of that kind are concerned. The section appears oversimplified and the Minister may find himself in difficulties when he comes to implement it.
This Bill was not under consideration for many years. It has been under consideration only since the time I started to formulate these proposals. This particular proposal is one I advocated in the Dáil long before I became Minister for Lands as a possible aid in solving this problem. First of all, however, I should like to deal with Senator Fitzgerald's anxiety as to how it will work in practice. The intention is not that someone will walk into the Land Commission immediately some farm is advertised for sale and say he wants to buy it. This provision is intended to enable the Land Commission to pick out one or two progressive young farmers in a particular townland in a congested area and to tell them that, provided they leave their holdings for rearrangement amongst their neighbours, the Land Commission will be prepared to help them to buy good holdings in another area. The Land Commission will make up the difference between their savings and the actual cost of the holdings by way of advance.
The Land Commission will then be in a position to know what rearrangement is possible in the area and that will save a great deal of valuable official time. The experience in the past in this regard has not always been a happy one because very often proposed migrants refuse to accept the alternative holdings offered. This provision will enable ambitious young farmers to buy holdings of their own choice. They will know beforehand what they will get from the Land Commission for their own holdings and they will be approved for advances to enable them to purchase the new holdings. The Land Commission must know in advance because otherwise the two might bid against each other at the same sale.
I visualise here the progressive man who has saved his shillings and his pounds and is on the lookout, as many are, to better himself. Instead of concentrating on his own area in the hope of getting a couple of acres, here we are giving him an inducement to go out and look for an economic unit outside, leaving his holding available for the relief of his neighbours. It is in these circumstances that it is visualised this section being applied.
Naturally I expect that when this becomes law, the local office of the Land Commission in any particular place will have a number of applications from congests to be approved under this section and inviting the Land Commission to tell them whether they approve of them or what they would lay out for them for their own particular holding and to enable them to go ahead and solve their own congestion problem under this section. Broadly speaking, that is how it is contemplated we will work this section.
Two points were made by, I think, Senator Cole. One was in regard to section 5, subsection (2) (vi) which reads:
the payment by a qualified person to the Land Commission of a fee or fees for an inspection or inspections deemed necessary by the Land Commission in respect of an application for an advance under this section;
It is proposed to leave these regulations as flexible as possible to enable the Land Commission to meet any particular instance. I would remind Senators, who may not be familiar with an existing procedure, that the Agricultural Credit Corporation have been financing the purchase by some approved farmers of extra land or of a new holding. Under the present practice, if a person applies in an area in rural Ireland for an advance to enable him to buy a holding, he gives particulars of the holding, the price he expects it will fetch and what he will need from the Corporation to go ahead with this expansion or takeover. An inspector is sent from the Agricultural Credit Corporation to evaluate the new holding and to see whether they should advance him so much money for the purpose. It is being provided here that the Land Commission can do the same thing in a suitable case. This would arise only in cases where the Land Commission would have to advance practically the full price of the new holding, in cases where there might be some doubt as to what the applicant is taking on and as to the security of the new holding for the advance.
The second point raised was on paragraph (vii) which reads:
the application of such existing provisions in the Land Purchase Acts or the Land Reclamation Act, 1949, as the Minister deems necessary, relating to vesting of land and to the apportionment, consolidation, charging and recovery of advances under this section and the adaptation where necessary of references in such provisions.
Senators will appreciate that there are two transactions involved here. There is the purchase—because that is what it amounts to—of the applicant's old holding with whatever it may be subject to—it may be subject already to a reclamation annuity or some other improvement charge—and then there is the purchase of the new holding. Therefore it is necessary to have this provision and regulations to deal with any particular set of circumstances that may arise as between the new holding and the old one.
There was also a query in regard to subsection (3) which reads:
(a) Stamp duty shall not be chargeable on any instrument made for the purpose of this section.
(b) No fee or other payment shall be charged or imposed by the Registry of Deeds in respect of any document which is necessary for or in relation to an advance under this section.
The reason for that should be obvious to Senators, that in connection with these two transactions, the title of the old holding will have to be, as is normal, investigated by the Land Commission and the Land Commission must be registered as owners of it. Senators may not be generally aware that where there is a purchase by the Land Commission, it is subject to the same type of requirements as in the case of a private individual and it may be necessary to bespeak a number of documents, depending on the title. Again in connection with the purchase of the new holding, where in the normal course of events the applicant—we will take the typical case—if he purchases by public auction or through an auctioneer, would be liable for the fees and also liable for legal expenses, it is intended to have regulations flexible enough to include in the advances a sufficient amount to cover these expenses. There is no reason why at the taxpayer's expense stamp duty should be charged.
The query which I put was why under subsection (3) (b) the Land Registry is not included. I quite appreciate why no stamp duty is charged and no fees are charged by the Registry of Deeds but why are fees charged by the Land Registry of the Land Commission?
The reason for that provision is the reason I have given.
I quite appreciate that.
I will think over what the Senator has suggested about the Land Registry. In actual practice, however, it will be the applicant's own transaction, in regard to a new holding, and he will be doing his own business and employing his own solicitor. He would be liable for the ordinary costs of purchase in that case. As I said, the money he may acquire from the Land Commission will be by way of loan, just as it would be from the Agricultural Credit Corporation, to cover his expenses, but this will be borrowed money. The Senator's point would be relevant if any documents were necessary to complete the Land Commission's title to the holding they are buying from him, as far as the Land Registry is concerned. It might possibly arise in some cases where equities are not discharged but the Land Commission have special liaison officers in the Land Registry and they would know whether a land certificate was issued or not. If it was not, then they would be safe enough, subject to the ordinary rules of investigation. In cases where the certificate was missing, they would have to go to the expense of having a duplicate land certificate issued. On the spur of the moment, that is the only situation I can think of in which it might arise.
The Minister and I speak the same language on this point. As I see it, the only reason a person might have to pay a fee to the Registry of Deeds in connection with a transaction such as this would be to get certified copies of a memorial to show title. He would have to pay a fee to the Land Registry to show title and a fee of one shilling to the Land Commission to get a copy of a vesting or a fair rent order, as the case might be.
My point is that they are exactly the same. The Minister made the point that the fee the purchaser would have to pay to the Land Registry would be a fee payable in order to prove his title. I wish to point out that the very same argument applies to stamp duty. He would have to pay stamp duty to show title. He would have to pay a fee to the Land Registry to get his title registered. They are both on a par. I feel sure the Minister sees the point I am endeavouring to make. If he appreciates the logic of the point, then I suggest he has another look at the matter between now and Report Stage.
I shall certainly undertake to do that. I hope the Senator appreciates there is a difference on the one hand between the Land Commission taking over X's farm and, on the other hand, X going out on the open market and purchasing against all comers. In the second case, X would be a competitor against other people. Under this section he will be operating under the same rules and practices as would apply if the Land Commission were not in the transaction at all. The Land Commission will only finance him behind the scenes.
Subsection (3) (a) is wide enough to cover stamp duty in either direction—to the Land Commission or to the congest who is being rehoused, so to speak. If that is so, I cannot see why Land Registry fees——
As I have told the Senator, I shall have another look at it.
We all welcome this section, apart from the very genuine reservations I made when moving my amendment. We welcome it as an effort to speed up the solution of the rundale problem by self-migration in addition to ordinary migration; but in doing that the Government must see the self-migrant as a man who is performing a service to the locality in which he lives. He cannot move out unless it is certified that his holding is suitable for land settlement, so he is performing a real service. Consequently, in drawing up the regulations the Government should see to it that the self-migrant is treated in a manner exactly parallel to the way in which a migrant is treated.
This does not appear to be the case in the section as drawn up and as interpreted for us by the Minister because it says that the advance given is in connection with the purchase by the self-migrant of the land. There is apparently only the land value in question. The special concession given by the Government is that this will be paid back at half annuity; in other words, the migrant is forgiven half of the advance. If he were a migrant in the ordinary way, the holding would be prepared for him: the house would be seen to, the water supply laid on and other necessary improvements carried out before the holding was handed over.
Most of the cost of those improvements would be borne by the State. In the present case it looks as though he is given only an advance towards the price of the land. I would appeal to the Minister to see to it that this advance will include the capital necessary to put buildings in a proper state of repair suited to the locality and that the cost of the provision of other amenities such as water should be included in the advance. The migrant would then get the usual half remission on that sum.
These items can be very considerable, and for the guidance of Senators, I should like to give some figures I have got from the Land Commission in respect of 1957. For comparison purposes they are relevant still. The figures state that the average cost per holding in migrant schemes in Kildare, Meath and Westmeath, involving holdings of 42 statute acres, was as follows: price of land, £1,625; buildings, £1,554; water supply, £151; other improvements, £241; special assistance, £125; and administrative costs, £420. The whole lot added up to £4,116 and the amount the farmer had to pay back was: land, £1,156; buildings, £104; and other improvements, £2. In other words, he paid back £1,262, less than one-third of the total cost.
The point I am making is that self-migrants should be given an allowance to cover the arrangement of the farm in the same way as if the Land Commission had taken it over and handed it over to the migrant. Otherwise, you encourage the self-migrant to say he will give up his place only in return for a place that will be handed over to him by the Land Commission. If the Government wish to encourage self-migration, they must consider these factors.
Subsection (2) (a) is wide enough to deal with this problem, if required.
The Minister agrees, then, that the self-migrant will get exactly similar conditions in connection with repayment and all the rest of it as the migrant.
I did not say that. This enabling section under which the regulations can be made is wide enough to make the regulations as flexible as possible. The Senator's figures are far off the mark. The amount would be nearer £8,000 nowadays. There is another vast difference. The Senator seems not to appreciate the fact that the holding, buildings and all, is the choice of the individual farmer who is migrating himself. What the Commission are doing, apart from giving him a price for his own holding which will have an inducement element in it, is financing him to get this new holding of his own choice. The self-migrant will be paying back that money or as much of it as he requires from the Commission. He is making his own choice.
Perhaps it would amaze some Senators that many people in the west of Ireland regard places like Meath and Kildare as backward in respect of the social life they are used to in the area from which I come. I agree with them. In this case the individual will be enabled to follow his local paper to see if there is a good viable holding going in his own area which will enable him to enjoy all the amenities and social life that all we westerners are reared to.
Can the Minister make an Order under subsection (2) if a person outside the congested area wants to do what is provided for in section 5? What will be the position of a man in the next townland, who may be in a similar position to that of a man in the congested area and who wants to do the same as that man?
I do not want to mislead the House or the public in any way, but what is visualised under section 4 is this. Where there is a pocket of congestion, there is power to declare this area, outside the places set out in the Bill, to be a congested area, be it big or small. Notoriously, the Land Commission, or any other State body, do not deal with individuals. They do not take over one holding just to deal with one man. I visualise they would make the Order to which the Senator refers in a case in which there is a genuine pocket of congestion in a parish or townland, which would involve the rearrangement of an area or two or three people coming out of the area. In other words, this would be an area in which you would have the same or similar conditions as in the areas covered by the Bill. At the same time, if there is such an area and it is recommended by the Land Commission that, because of the circumstances, it should be given the same treatment as the congested area, the power it there to do it.
I agree with the Minister that the power is here to make regulations to cover the points I raised. However, I am afraid the Minister is not over sympathetic with those points. He is stressing far too much the element of choice that the self-migrant has. In point of fact, the whole purpose of the section is to speed the settlement of the rundale problem. Consequently, the self-migrant confers a real advantage on the Land Commission and on the district by his action. He should get at least the same grants and facilities and reliefs as a migrant would get in the same circumstances. As I said when quoting these figures earlier, they relate to 1957 and are, consequently. out of date. But, relatively, they are not. In other words, the Land Commission still bear the greater portion of the cost of settling a migrant. At that time, in 1957, the cost to the State was £3,400 per settlement.
One other argument in favour of getting a self-migrant off to a proper start is this. We do not want to recreate or perpetuate on his new farm slack farming practice. He will be able to buy only a relatively small holding. Therefore, that should be going from the start to ensure maximum production. It is an advantage, not alone for the self-migrant but also for the nation, that our farms, big and small, be producing to the maximum of their capacity.
Consequently, I appeal to the Minister in drafting regulations for this to keep uppermost in his mind fair play for the self-migrant and production for the nation by ensuring that adequate capital is available for the development of the land in the proper way.
Did the Minister say that congests from the west can apply and successfully get a new farm in the midlands and, if they do not like life there, can buy another new farm back in the west again, with the aid of the Land Commission?
No.
I move amendment No. 4:
Before section 6 to insert a new section as follows:
"The Land Commission shall subdivide and allocate land acquired by them, within two years from the date of the acquisition thereof."
My reason for putting down this amendment is to try to expedite the work of the Land Commission. I know they have been severely criticised in the past. In my own county they have been criticised by Fianna Fáil Deputies and by the members of the county committee of agriculture representing the same Party. It should first be noted, as I have stated, that a period of two years is to run from the date of acquisition, the date from which the land becomes the property of the Land Commission. Those of us in public life know of cases where the Land Commission have had land in hands for many years —very often from eight to ten and 12 years. We know this land has been let for a long number of years. I have seen land in my own area let for tillage for three, four and five years. It was completely run out when the tenants got it. It was let until its life and richness had been drained away. We should be jealous of and guard the fertility of the soil of Ireland, and the Land Commission should set the example. They should not be guilty of that which they very often accuse other people.
On 24th October, 1963, in reply to a question asked in the Dáil, the Minister said that in County Westmeath there were 4,418 acres of land awaiting division, some of which had been held by the Land Commission since 15th November, 1960; that in the neighbouring County Meath, there were 7,843 acres awaiting division, some of which had been in the hands of the Land Commission since 17th April, 1957; and that in County Kildare the Land Commission held 2,758 acres of land, some of it since 5th November, 1956.
It will be seen that some of this land has been held for as many as six and seven years. I admit the Land Commission are entitled to hold land for a reasonable time and until they agree and decide upon who is to get it and also until houses are built for these people. As soon as the land is acquired, I think the list of the successful applicants should be made available as soon as possible. There is nothing that more disrupts life in rural Ireland than a large farm being let for a long number of years, after being taken over, when the local people expect it to be divided. We all know all about it. Public representatives will be called to meetings. They will make representations for various people. There may be 20 or 30 small uneconomic holders in the area living in hope for perhaps three, four or five years. They are left in ignorance for a long time and ultimately many of them are disappointed.
Under this Bill the Land Commission will have power to take land that has been let for long periods. We are not the only people who are making this accusation against the Land Commission. Deputy Carty, the Fianna Fáil Deputy from Galway, stated in the Dáil, as reported at column 178, volume 206 of the Official Report of Thursday 28th November, 1963:
They may find out that they themselves are the biggest culprits and some other statutory body may have to be set up to take from the Land Commission land which they themselves have been holding for ten or 12 years.
I know cases where the Land Commission held land for six or seven years. I put down this amendment in order to see if it would be possible to expedite the operations of the Land Commission.
I cannot accept the amendment. I am surprised at the proposition that the Land Commission should generally allot lands within two years of acquisition. Indeed, there is current instruction in the Land Commission to that effect. But, it would be most unwise, and even impracticable, to tie the hands of the Land Commission by a statutory time limit as is suggested in this amendment. There are occasions when delays are unavoidable, for instance, in the completion of buildings for migrants' holdings, and the allotment of boglands. A time limit of two years would be altogether impracticable, having regard to the development work which is usually required. It may very well be necessary to build up over a few years a pool of land in the locality scheduled for rearrangement.
An amendment in exactly the same terms as this amendment was tabled in the Dáil and was rejected by the Dáil and a number of speakers to that amendment in the Dáil, not members of my Party, agreed that it would be unwise and impracticable to tie the Land Commission's hands in this way.
Generally speaking, where there have been long delays, such as have been referred to by the Senator, of six or seven years, they have possibly been cases where the Land Commission had proceedings for the acquisition of other lands in the same area. It often occurs that one place may may come into the hands of the Land Commission at a time when they have proceedings pending in respect of two or three other holdings in the area the acquisition of which would be necessary in order to make a proper rearrangement scheme and to settle the area. Naturally, in these cases the Land Commission wait to see whether or not they will get the additional lands which they are trying to get into the intake machine.
Statistics in regard to this matter, as in so many other instances, can be very misleading. There are the cases, for instance, where a question of rearrangement is involved. For those who are not familiar with this problem, may I say that rearrangement depends on the agreement of those concerned to participate in the scheme? It entails one man being willing to surrender portion of his existing holding in exchange for other lands to be given to him by the Land Commission in order to make a compact holding of his own. There are many of these cases in which, through no fault of the Land Commission, but for the simple reason that there are, perhaps, one or two recalcitrant persons in the area whom one cannot lead or drive, rearrangement schemes, no matter how badly needed or how desirable they may be, cannot be proceeded with until agreement is achieved.
It is possible that such cases would be easier of solution if somebody else could be taken out so that there would be more land to go round but in cases of rearrangement such as I have mentioned there will be instances where land is in the hands of the Land Commission for a very long time and if a question is addressed to me in the Dáil asking me to state the number of acres in the hands of the Land Commission for over ten or 12 years, when I give the reply, I am in many instances dealing with such cases where the lands are in the hands of the Land Commission, not through any fault of theirs but because they are not in a position to get an open agreement on a rearrangement scheme. I agree of course that it is desirable that the lands should be divided as quickly as possible.
Let me lay another ghost—a question on which there is much public misunderstanding. It has been alleged by some Deputies and others that the Land Commission let lands because of the rents they get out of them. That suggestion is completely untrue and unfounded. In fact, generally speaking, the letting of the lands of the Land Commission is a financial loss to them because these lands entail certain expense so long as they are on the hands of the Land Commission. The quicker the Land Commission get rid of any lands they acquire, the less expense there is on them. Therefore, there is no revenue consideration involved in this issue at all.
I merely mention this because it is a common misapprehension abroad that the Land Commission, from the point of view of economics, think it good business to let lands for a period of time, for the mere reason of getting a rent from such lands. I suppose the best way of laying that ghost would be to point out that, generally speaking, there is a loss to the Land Commission on resale of holdings to tenants in such cases of approximately 25 per cent.
At all events, as I have said, there is a direction to the Land Commission that any cases that go beyond two years should be brought—as they are brought—to my personal attention. I can assure the House that, generally speaking, where there is delay, there is a very good practical reason for it. I think, however, as a matter of policy decision, that where even a partial scheme can be put through, the Land Commission should not pursue the former practice, that is, to keep letting lands for a very considerable period in the hope that other lands in the same area will come into the Land Commission machine. That practice is being discontinued, and in so far as it is practicable for the Land Commission in any instance to make even a partial rearrangement scheme, they are now directed to do so.
Senators from rural areas will no doubt be aware of the meticulous examination that must take place for the preparation of a scheme for division. Indeed, Senators and Deputies would be the first to complain if all the people within the mile limit are not interviewed and their full circumstances taken into consideration before the scheme is prepared. That takes time and in some counties, when there is a lot of land to be dealt with, the staff have to do the best they can with the work that is there before them.
As I have said, in the general run of cases, the position now is that within two years schemes are prepared and the land is divided. I make a special exception of the cases of land where migrants are involved because in these cases there are often improvement works that take a considerable time. These days, the Land Commission have very grave difficulty in getting the necessary buildings completed or, indeed, in the building boom of recent times, in even getting contractors to take on Land Commission contracts at all. They would appear to be otherwise more profitably engaged in many instances.
Even in the far west, we have been driven to start putting up Land Commission buildings by direct labour under our own inspectors. I mention that to indicate how difficult it is in this business to work to a particular time schedule and to indicate how impracticable it would be to write into our law a provision that the Land Commission would, in every case, have got rid of the land they have acquired within a period of two years.
I am quite prepared to accept the Minister's explanation. It was quite reasonable and, with the permission of the House, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
I move amendment No. 5:
Before section 6 to insert a new section as follows:
Where it is proved to the satisfaction of the Land Commissioners that a farmer's son 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 know that at the present time there are no legal impediments to those people getting land but—whether by direction of the various Ministers who have been in charge of that Department over the years or an agreed policy amongst themselves—it is in a very rare case now that a landless man gets land. They are so far down in the list of priorities that they are seldom reached. In the past, land was given to cottiers and to landless men and in the vast majority of cases, it was a success. I would not appeal, indeed, to the Minister to give it to every Tom, Dick and Harry or to open the sluice gates, but I want the Commissioners to have power to give land if there is a first-class young man in a locality, let him be a farmer's son or even a person living in a cottage.
When speaking on the previous occasion I gave an example of a young man living in a cottage who is 24 years old and married. Through hard work and initiative, he now has five cows, five or six calves and ten or 12 sheep. He took 15 or 16 acres of land on the 11-month system for a long number of years. That land has now been taken over by the Land Commission. Under the policy of the Department at the present time, I fear that that man has not a hope in the world of getting a piece of land. It is unfair to a person of that type who, through hard work and initiative, has built up a herd of cows and calves. Now that the land has been taken over by the Land Commission, he will have to dispose of them. Such a person should be given equal consideration with other applicants.
The same remarks apply to very many farmers' sons. Some of them do not want to leave the land. The brothers and sisters may go to the cities and towns but only one son may get the home farm, while there may be another son who wants to be a farmer too. He will stay at home on the land. With the help of the bank manager, he may purchase a tractor and take land for tillage and do that for four or five years and get into cattle, cows and sheep. I hold that any man devoted to agriculture in that way should get an equal chance, but such is not the case at the moment. I know many of those people. They are a credit to themselves and, indeed, they are a shining example perhaps to land owners.
It was the policy of the present Government at one time to give land to landless men. I think that in the mid-1930's the Fianna Fáil Party gave land to landless men at that time. I know some of them in my county. They have become excellent farmers. My firm belief and conviction is that the landless man—whether a farmer's son or a cottier who, through hard work and initiative, has taken land and reared and fed stock and now has stock and perhaps some capital to work a farm properly—should receive better consideration than he is getting at the present time.
While I agree with the sentiments expressed by Senator L'Estrange, I feel his amendment is useless. There is nothing in the law at the moment to prevent the Land Commission giving land to landless men. It is true, as he says, that up to now landless men got very little consideration from the Land Commission. I believe the Land Commission should set itself two targets: one, the provision of land for congests and migrants and, two, the provision of land for landless men. Where a farm that had been let for years and years to landless men is acquired by the Land Commission, these men should be given priority when that land is divided. I agree it would be difficult to write this into the Bill because it is possible that some of these men who have been taking conacre may not prove to be good farmers. However, I would be happy if the Minister would give us an undertaking that in future the Land Commission will give special consideration to landless men.
As I said on the Second Stage, this is a problem that is found very often in Donegal where there are in confined areas hundreds of landless men, people who own 20 to 30 head of cattle, who till 20 to 30 acres of land and who do not own a square foot of land. I know of one large farm about to be divided that was let for years to people of this type, good farmers, who do not own a square foot of land. I should like to feel that in future people of this type will be given special consideration.
I should like to support very strongly the two previous speakers on this amendment in their plea that we should give special attention to the problem of landless men. That is important in its own right. The problem in Donegal to which Senator McGlinchey referred exists also all over the southern counties. Take the case of an industrious man who has taken conacre, built up a herd of cows and in that way is earning a livelihood. If there were a landlord system, obviously such a person would rate very highly in the consideration of a landlord as to who would make a good tenant; in other words a person who has proved it by his work. Unfortunately our system does not encourage any element of this type of renting on a long-term basis and there is no place for such a person. Such people provide one of the most valuable elements in our rural community and wherever given a chance, they have always risen to the occasion. They represent a class that could very well be included by the Minister under the previous section 5, a class in respect of which liberal provision should be made to enable them to buy for themselves if the Land Commission were not in a position to provide them with a place.
That is just for the persons themselves but it is also important to provide such an opportunity, in order to encourage our young men to work the land. Wages are no longer sufficient incentive to hold a young man in his twenties on the land. A young lad of 18 or 19 is fully effective on a farm with modern machinery because he is able to play a full role and at that age he is worth as much as he will be worth ten years later. He reaches the age of 20, having had the skill and experience of working that machinery, and so on, on the farm, but what of the future? There is none. There is not even the likelihood of an increase in pay because he is at the maximum rate.
The only opportunity the Government can hold before such a person is that of getting some land for himself. Without those young men, it will be impossible to develop our medium and large farms as they should be developed. That is the greatest contribution the Government can make in their land policy towards increasing production in the region outside the popularly accepted congested districts. It is high time the Government made a much more positive statement on this. We have not been satisfied in regard to the farm apprenticeship scheme, which has the same idea, the training of the landless man ultimately to become an owner. The Government are excluding these from their list of Land Commission holders. It is high time they were included. An educational scheme in vocational and agricultural schools, married to a savings scheme, is a desirable development. Surely at 26 or 30 years, such young landless people would be ideal material for going forward on their own. I ask the Minister to heed the appeals from both sides of the House and to try to get a positive statement from the Government on the question of landless men.
As I understand this Land Bill, it is a Bill intended to put uneconomic holders on a reasonably sound economic basis. I cannot understand, therefore, why an amendment like this, which cuts across that principle, should be put down. The amount of land the Minister would need to bring all the uneconomic holdings up to a reasonable standard, not to 40 or 45 acres as he expects to do but even to 30 acres, is not available. There is no hope for that and yet there is an amendment down here to bring in another section of people. We must be honest about this.
I may have been criticised throughout the country because I opposed landless men getting holdings. I cannot possibly stand behind landless men getting holdings while there is a man trying to make a living on land with a valuation of £12, £10 and even down as low as £2 10s. We must be more reasonable in our outlook on the whole matter of land division. I have a distinct recollection in this House, perhaps 30 years ago, of Ministers on our side of the House introducing legislation whereby they gave numbers of holdings to landless men. I also distinctly remember those Ministers were faced at a later stage with the position in which they had to evict those people. Some of them were in Senator L'Estrange's county. They also had to be evicted in my own county because they were not able to make a living out of the holdings of land they got. I consider the Government then and the Government now would have been much better engaged in trying to see that the people living on small holdings should have them brought up to a valuation sufficient to enable those who are trying to make a living out of the land for themselves and their families to do so. We should be able to put people on the land who would be able to live on the land. I sincerely hope the Minister rejects this amendment and that we get down to the fundamentals in the Bill.
I should like to support the previous Senators who spoke for the landless people. As an auctioneer, it is my business, down in the midlands, to know these people. They are very hard working. They pay their bills promptly. Recently one of those men was looking for some land but it went to another man. He was refused the land because he was a landless man. Those people who would like to work on the land should be given land. I am sure, if they were given it, it would not happen, as the last speaker said, that they would have to be evicted out of it. I am sure the Land Commission inspectors are able to judge landless people. I hope the amendment will be accepted.
I am sure the Seanad will realise that any proposal which has the support of Senator L'Estrange, Senator McGlinchey and Senator Quinlan is worthy of consideration, if only for the surprise.
Surprise from Senator Sheldon.
I do not think land should be given only to farmers' sons. I should like to see it given to others as well but I do not think this is the proper time for that. We got rid of landlordism but I do not think we were right to do that. Landlordism provides for landless men in Great Britain. Those men had nothing to do with farming previously but because of the land system there, they are permitted to get land and take a farm for five or ten years. There are credit facilities available for this, and also for stock. They are thus able to get a good start.
There is a great deal to be said for having a completely definite point of view on the use of land. Because of our historical background, we are, perhaps, unduly concerned with ownership. One distinguished Senator spoke about the inalienable right of ownership. Land is much too important in the world, when our population is increasing to such an extent, to allow anyone to have a right to land that could not be over-ridden and that he would have the right not to use it.
I agree with Senator Killilea that this is not the function of the Land Commission. The function of the Land Commission is to relieve congestion and the purpose of this Bill is to do that. The wider issue of the use of land is something which I consider should arise in a different way and at a different time. I do not believe anyone has given really enough thought to this problem. Young men who have a feeling for farming and who want to get into farming—their fathers may not have the capital to buy them farms— should be given an opportunity to do so. Solicitors' sons, doctors' sons and such people with a good educational start and who are interested in farming are unable to get a farm unless their fathers can put up the money to buy them a farm and to stock it. They have not a hope otherwise. That is an entirely different matter from this Bill.
The function of the Land Commission, as I see it, is to relieve congestion and that is what the Bill deals with. I do not think we should be considering broader issues here. We are only confusing things, if we do that. I take it the purpose of this Bill mainly is to speed up the work of the Land Commission. The Minister is encouraging people with a carrot now rather than a stick. We should not bring in wider issues on this Bill.
When I spoke on the Second Stage of this Bill, my statement could be condensed into saying that land should be given to farmers rather than to landless men. I say that deliberately because I really try to draw the distinction between farmers and landowners. We must have regard, at this stage in our history, to the proper use of land when we are adopting a land policy. While it is not the function of this Bill to deal with the use of land as such, or the function of the Department, there is still an obligation on the Land Commission and Legislature to frame a policy which will tend towards a better use of land.
It is very easy to put down popular amendments. It is a very nice thing to offer something to somebody but we must be practical. This is not a practical amendment. We must see that proper use is made of all land available. What are we to do with any land that becomes available to the Land Commission? Are we to give it to farmers, to big landowners or to small farmers? Are we to create more small farms or to increase the size of existing farms?
Senator Killilea has spoken against this amendment. I suppose somebody must be a devil's advocate on this matter. We all know what we should like to see done but we have not the area of land we should like to see available for the relief of congestion. If any impact is to be made on this matter, and I hope it will, it will need to be done more speedily and more successfully than in the past. If this amendment were accepted, it would create more small farms and I would see no hope at all of dealing with the congested districts and the Land Commission will fail.
I do not think the amendment should be accepted. I do not think that land taken either from big landowners in Meath, Westmeath or Kildare or from small landowners in Mayo should be given to landless men but should be used for the relief of congestion to make farms economic for farmers. That is why land should be taken from small or big landowners.
In passing, I may say there was something in Senator Sheldon's statement that in regard to land, anything we do seems to be a mixed blessing. Because of the success of the Land War, we achieved the position in which people could use land so that the briars growing on one side of the field could meet the briars on the other side. It was a great thing to have achieved that freedom but freedom so used is not a good thing in the long run. I think I am interpreting the Senator correctly, that it was such a situation he had in mind. Under this Bill it will be the duty of the Land Commission to use land in the public interest and make sure that people who get land are farmers and will farm it.
The motive behind this amendment is not a request to the Land Commission indiscriminately to give land out to landless men. Every Senator knows, I think, of some particular case of, say, a farmer's son or a businessman's son who has no land but who takes land on the 11-months system all over the country and appears to make a fairly successful living from it whether in dairying and supplying milk, or in market gardening or tillage or some occupation of that kind, and he can prove to the Land Commission or to anybody who investigates that he would be a better farmer than many of those for whom we are legislating under this Bill.
I know that Senator Mrs. Aherne said you cannot legislate for exceptions, that it would be bad legislation. I agree, but are we not legislating for exceptions here? Everybody is excepted unless they come from the congested districts. In other words, land can be acquired under this Bill only for the relief of congestion but there are throughout the country many people who have both the financial resources and the agricultural ability to use land. The Minister could have another look at this section and in specific cases where the Land Commission are satisfied that although a person may be landless he might be well qualified, he should be considered under this Bill.
It depends on the category of a landless person whether we could consider him under this particular section. What constitutes a farmer is another question. It has been asked before: is it a man who owns land or a man who makes use of land? Since we are dealing principally in this Bill with western areas, if you consider a county such as Leitrim, can you describe such a man living on the land there as a farmer in the true sense? He is a farm labourer. It is hoped under this Bill to make it possible for him to get a living out of a holding of adequate size. As Senator Quigley pointed out as an auctioneer, I also have experience of people who have been living in labourers' cottages and who have taken land on the 11-months system and who, to my mind, have made very good farmers, have made good use of the land, but who are disqualified when it comes to allocation of land.
I have known men who bought land by their own efforts. Even though living in labourers' cottages, they had the courage to borrow money to purchase the land. They made good use of it and I think that category should be sympathetically considered. I have no doubt the Minister will do so, especially in counties such as my own and some of the western counties. In view of the drift from land, I should be very much in favour of having those people considered for land left idle and derelict. I am sure many of them would have been very glad to go into holdings which others had left but there was no legislation by which they could be enabled to do so. We can go to the cities and towns and find people working in back or front gardens who have made more effort and produce more than some of those who are styled farmers.
The same applies to labourers. Although living in a cottage, they used the cottage plot to grow vegetables and they are anxious to get more land and make a "go" of it. I believe the Minister will be sympathetic in any case that may come up for his consideration from my county or any western county of a man who has taken land on the 11-months system. I take it that the underlying principle of the Bill is that no man will be allocated land unless he is prepared to make use of it. That is my personal interpretation of the Bill, that its purpose is to put into production the waste lands of this country as well as relieving congestion and making the small holdings more economic than the existing holdings on which people are living.
I should like to support this amendment which says that where it is proved to the satisfaction of the Land Commission that a farmer's son or farm worker, even though he be landless, is a suitable person to acquire land, he may be considered for it. I say this because I believe farming should not be a closed profession or trade. I believe that many of those described as landless men who can get a living out of farming by the conacre system where overheads are usually higher have proved that they are capable of working and generally have gained their experience the hard way. They are genuinely interested in farming, the life and the work, and when it comes to allocation of land, I do not think they should be debarred just because they do not own land. Seeing that when the Bill is passed none of the farmers will have 100 per cent ownership of their land, I do not think we should discriminate against these people.
Some Senators seem to advocate certain compulsion as to the way farmers should henceforth work their holdings.
That matter is not in order on this Bill, the purpose of which is to relieve congestion. The use to be made of the land is a matter for another debate. It is certainly not in order to debate it in extenso on this amendment.
I think the Senator is merely replying in passing to points made on the other side of the House.
Perhaps the Chair has been too lenient but that leniency should not be abused.
The section as set out is useful, but it would be still more useful if this amendment were accepted. The amendment states quite clearly: "Where it is proved to the satisfaction of the Land Commissioners that a farmer's son or farm worker, even though he be landless, is a suitable person...". It is not easy to prove something to the satisfaction of the Land Commission, but the amendment caters for that. There should be complete agreement on that principle, if we look at it calmly. I should like to see— I am not saying there will be or there must be—a vote on a matter of this kind. It should be left open to the House. I have a fair idea of what would happen.
I should like to see any man going to a crossroads and speaking against that principle. He would not do so if he were a public representative unless he was in some select land area in the country, and I do not think there are many select land areas in the whole country. If we say we want to keep the people on the land—and there is no dispute about that—we cannot say that the amendment cannot go through. Everyone is worrying about keeping the people on the land, and it is the duty of everyone to encourage them to remain on the land. We cannot say: "No; we are sorry but it cannot be done in this case." I do not see how any sane man or woman could justify that. We cannot say: "Some day such persons will be looked after, but we are sorry it cannot be done now because there is only so much land." People can find an excuse for every case they want to make.
The number of farm workers has been reduced by mechanisation. No one will dispute that, and no one will dispute what the farm workers have produced from the land. We cannot say that no matter what land we have, there is no land available for the farm worker, or the farmer's son who helps his father on the land or goes out and earns his livelihood from another farmer, as many of them do.
I referred the week before last to the man who has an acre of land and a cottage. That type of person has always been by-passed. The best part of a century ago an alien Government decided that a man should get a cottage and an acre of land, but it had to be on a special holding. Even then he could not get a cottage and an acre of land unless he had a good deal of influence. Is such a person to remain in the same position under a native Government? Is he not to be considered for an increase in his holding? I think it was stated the week before last that cottage holders are entitled to plots of about five acres.
I see in today's paper that the Cork County Committee of Agriculture— the biggest county committee of agriculture in the 26 Counties—called on the Minister for Lands to expedite the division of land taken over by the Land Commission and to state if cottage holders are entitled to any land. The motion was passed by all Parties. They were worried about the delay in the division of land. At one stage of the discussion it was stated that cottage holders were entitled to plots of about five acres. If that is so, have they got five acres? I am sure every Senator knows how the cottage holders are placed economically, and what their conditions are.
I do not see any solid objection to the amendment. Perhaps we will learn that there is none when the Minister speaks on it. The case has been made: "We have only so much land and, therefore, we are sorry we cannot give land to everyone who needs it". The farmers' sons and the farm workers have been by-passed. Land has been given to other landholders, who are entitled to it, of course. Anyone who gets land is entitled to it, provided the Land Commission are satisfied, and provided he does not come from another country—but that is being safeguarded by the Government and we do not have to make an issue of it in this debate.
I hope when the Minister is replying he will tell the country that the people to whom I have referred are entitled to justice. Later on there may be less land available although people may continue to leave the land for various reasons. It will be said that they wanted to go to a large industrial area, to a city, to England, or to America, but when we study their history we learn that, perhaps, one person out of 50 or 100 went because he felt he would like to go. Perhaps he had certain technical abilities or skills enabling him to travel all over the world. We all like to see that, but no Senator will dispute the fact that the overwhelming majority have gone because they could not maintain themselves and their families at home. Not everyone can have the same standard of living and I am not trying to make the point that they should, but they are entitled to justice and consideration in their own land. What was accepted by an alien Government should not be accepted by a native Government. A native Government have been managing our affairs now for over 40 years. Why must we hang on to the regulations and rules handed down to us by an alien Government? When we go to the crossroads—I talk about the crossroads because it is a meeting place——
The Senator has already dealt with the crossroads.
I want to emphasise the point that we should treat people equally and not go on the basis that we have only so much to distribute and must by-pass landless men, cottage holders, farmers' sons and farm workers. Maybe they will be looked after sometime. I think the amendment is a reasonable one
Scrutinising this amendment closely, I think it is a reasonable one. It is not a plea for the wholesale distribution of land among landless men. It is a plea on behalf of farmers' sons and farm workers. It is a plea on behalf of those who prove to the satisfaction of the Land Commission that they are suitable persons to acquire land, suitable by virtue of the fact that they have learned the skill of farming through their upbringing and are themselves anxious to become farmers. This is not a plea on behalf of those to the exclusion of people who already own land. It is a plea only on behalf of farmers' sons and agricultural workers, skilled in the art of farming and anxious to become farmers, that they should get equal treatment with those who already own land.
I suggest to the House this is a reasonable proposition. There are many small farmers with economic holdings of 35 to 40 acres; they have two or three sons all anxious to follow in their father's footsteps. Because the father has only one farm he can cater for only one son. This amendment is a plea that the second son of that farmer be given equal consideration in the distribution of land with other applicants. It is not an unreasonable amendment. It does not run counter to the stated aims of the Bill. It is not an amendment that should be lightly shot down by members on the other side who seem to think it runs contrary to the intentions of the Bill. It is simply a plea on behalf of people skilled in the art of agriculture and anxious to make that their way of living.
It seems to me that the people supporting this amendment are really arguing a point which, to some extent at least, everyone is perfectly willing to concede. We all know there are landless people who would make good farmers. No one denies that, neither the Minister nor anybody else. It is a question solely of priority. Some of these landless men are by no means so helpless as Senator Fitzpatrick has said. Any farmer should be able to raise a mortgage——
The mortgage may be there already.
——and I do not believe a farmer would have much trouble finding the funds to buy a second farm. It is a matter of priorities. We cannot treat everyone equally in this particular instance. Let us take a hypothetical case, a decent, good, hardworking farmer trying to raise a family on eight or ten acres of land. There is a little bit of land going in the neighbourhood. Will you give that land to him or to a landless man? Will you leave the man with the eight or ten acres to go on eking out an existence in poverty-stricken conditions? That is the sort of choice the Land Commission have to make all the time. That is the normal condition in the congested areas and one just cannot argue that landless men should get land while those conditions exist. Many landless men would make excellent farmers, but we must be realistic in this. Senator Quinlan talked about 100,000 uneconomic farms and wondered how we would ever improve them. We shall never do it so long as we go on chasing rainbows and proclaiming that landless men should get farms, merely because that is the popular thing to do. Let us be realistic. Let us have some consideration for the Land Commission. The problem will never be solved if every landless man in the country is given a farm.
I think the Minister should accept this amendment. I made the arguments in support of it on the Second Stage. In order to qualify for a farm, one must have a receivable order and one must be an uneconomic holder; in other words, one must be the baby of the Land Commission. A good farmer with a freehold will get no consideration from the Land Commission, irrespective of how good he is. The first thing we should do is not to look at the valuation or at whether a farm is or is not economic but, rather, to discover whether a man is competent to work land. The most competent to work land are farmers' sons, who have been reared on the land. They, however, get no consideration because they have no back garden carrying a receivable order.
I have known estates to be divided. The farm workers were got rid of before the Land Commission took over the land. The herd was kept on and in due course he was given a farm. Today the farm is derelict because the herd never worked the land; all he did was to walk it and count the cattle. It was the farm workers who should have been considered. The farm workers who had worked on these estates all during their lives should get an opportunity to settle as farmers and not be forced to cross the sea into industry where in many instances they are misfits. I fully support the amendment.
Those who are on the land at present with uneconomic farms must continue to have first claim on the available pool of land. Therefore, we cannot divert land, money and effort away from this problem to accommodate landless farmers' sons or farm workers' sons, however deserving these classes may be. Landless men are not statutorily debarred from consideration at present but in practice there is not sufficient land to accommodate them when the prior requirements of the relief of congestion are satisfied. The Senator who suggested that we were tied up in some way with an ancient and outmoded provision of an alien Government in this issue is in error.
We are tied up with the realities and in cutting our cloth to measure under the 1923 Land Act. The basis of this whole business is section 31 of the Act which provides, in regard to advances, what persons or bodies may receive them. Subsection (1) says that advances can be made to a person being the tenant or proprietor of a holding which is not economic in the opinion of the Land Commission. It goes on to deal with the exchange of holdings and with the eviction of tenants under the 1903 Act and to provide for "a person being a labourer who by reason of the sale of any lands under the provisions of the Land Purchase Acts has been deprived of his employment on the said lands."
Let me pause here before coming to the final section. Some speakers who have been advocating this issue should remember that under the Land Act, 1950 it was provided for the first time that instead of giving holdings to people who were workers and who were displaced where an estate was divided, could be compensated and the compensation was scaled from £80 to a couple of hundred pounds. That was written into the 1950 Act in respect of these landless men who were displaced where estates were acquired by the Land Commission. There was a substantial case for doing that because, irrespective of what some people may think, it was found in practice that where such men did get holdings they made very poor use of them and in a short time sold them.
Finally, under this section of the 1923 Act—I should like to make this clear—the classes whom the Land Commission can consider when dividing land include "any other person or body to whom in the opinion of the Land Commission an advance ought to be made". Therefore, under existing law, without any amendment such as this, the Land Commission are quite free if it is so decided, or if it is decided as a matter of national policy to give land to landless men where land is being divided. It would be completely unrealistic, however, not to point out that if you bring in any new classes and get away from the fundamental job which the Land Commission have of relieving congestion you are going to slow it up and perpetuate the land slum problem which it is our duty to try to solve.
For every landless man, farmer's son, tradesman's son, cottier, or all those other classes which it has been suggested should be provided with land, that you accommodate you are going to leave three or four people in the congested areas in misery and want. That is what Senators should realise when debating this problem. I know it is very nice to suggest for public consumption that we can be all things to all men and I am sure it is quite popular to go down to some crossroads, as suggested by some Senator, and propose that everybody in the area from the cottier's son, the farmer's son and the labourer's son, are all entitled to land when it is going. That, however, is being completely unrealistic in dealing with the problem we have.
Some Senator, I think it was Senator Quinlan, suggested we have 80,000 congests. I do not quite accept that figure. We are trying to get an accurate figure because many of these people have other occupations. Indeed, some of these cottiers are tradesmen or have other occupations and do not derive their livelihood solely or mainly or even at all from land usage. I would suggest that the figure is more in the region of 50,000 because Senators will realise that a lot of consolidation has gone on down the years. In many instances the one farmer has three or four demand notes on different sections of land and in many instances a lot of people in the category that statistics show as having between one and 15 acres or under 30 acres are shopkeepers or tradesmen and are not, in fact, uneconomic holders as a casual or uncritical look at the statistics would lead one to believe. Even assuming that the figure is approximately 50,000, that would indicate that if we are going to solve the problem it is completely unrealistic to suggest that there is land or a hope of getting sufficient land not alone to deal efficiently with these people but to provide for all other categories.
I might also remind the House that there have been, and rightly so, millions of pounds devoted to the solution of this problem down through the years and at present we are providing approximately £3 million a year to try to make an impact on the problem and enlarge these holdings. There are good social reasons for that expenditure but when you come to the farmer's son, particularly the substantial farmer's son, there is as much reason in my view for presenting him with a State gift of £7,000 or £8,000 worth of land at the taxpayer's expense as there is for providing for the shoemaker's son, the small shopkeeper's son, the small tradesman's son or people in many other occupations.
Those who say that there is an exodus from the land and that we are arriving at the stage where nobody is interested in getting it should have my experience for one week in my Department. There is a fantastic love of land ingrained in our people, a fantastic demand for land and for additions of land, day in, day out, week in, week out. Exodus from the land occurs only where the units are so small that the people could not possibly survive in this day and age on those units. It is true, of course, that you have people up and down the country who are in many cases not farmers' sons yet who do succeed in making a living by taking land in conacre for grazing and so forth even after they have paid high rents for that land.
There is no doubt that there are many landless men who would make good use of farms if they could get them. Such people are not confined to the south, the east, the west or the north: you will find them all over the country in every county; you will see them in every parish in rural Ireland.
It depends on the individual, on his drive, initiative and skill. Just as you would see the young man, born on a little holding whose valuation is no more than £2 or £3, by his efforts and ability enabling himself to acquire the land of his neighbour—the type of person whom we in my part of the country call the western lachico— becoming comparatively wealthy by our standards, you will see in the same parish, perhaps, a man born on a hundred acre holding ar seachrán and in debt, without the sign of a spud or a head of cabbage within miles of his home.
Those of us who live in rural Ireland know it depends on the individual concerned, on his ability to work the land intelligently and make a living in that way. The only place in respect of which a special case for landless people exists is Donegal where they have a peculiar system which, to my knowledge, one does not come across in any other part of the country. I suppose the people in Donegal are genuinely allied to each other: they will not migrate even from one side of the county to the other. Many of them, down through four or five generations, have existed by taking lettings of land and intensively cultivating it. Generally speaking, they would not be tempted to avail of the Land Commission's migration schemes in the same way as people would be in other congested areas.
In the Dáil and elsewhere very strong pleas have been made to me to deal with such cases in which the Land Commission were concerned. In principle, those people come under the subsection of the 1923 Act to which I have referred—the provision dealing with labourers who have been deprived of employment because of the acquisition of the estates on which they worked. That idea could be applied to the people in the Lagan Valley who, down through the generations, have been taking lettings for intensive cultivation.
In other counties, in many isolated instances, you will find communities of people in the same situation, and in the Dáil some Deputies made a strong case for such people, particularly in the southern dairying areas where, traditionally, families have been keeping a number of cows on land taken in lettings for the supply of milk to creameries and who have for generations been making a living in that way.
At all events, I hope I have made it clear that as the law stands there is nothing to prevent the Land Commission from giving land to landless men but, as Senator Yeats pointed out, a question of priorities exists if we are to solve the congestion problem. The Congested Districts Board and the Land Commission were established to deal with the congestion problem down through the years and Land Acts have all been sincerely aimed at dealing with that problem. It is for the same purpose that this Bill is before the House.
In my view it would not be only unrealistic but dishonest on my part to suggest that there is a hope of providing holdings of such a scarce commodity as land for all the categories which, it has been pleaded, should be dealt with. In the congested areas, where one person is dealt with several others will be left unrelieved. The Land Commission have no rule entitling cottiers to five acres, to three acres or to two acres: they are entitled to get only as much as the Land Commission have to give.
There have been some instances in the past and up to quite recently of cowparks being provided. That does not work nowadays. Cowparks are provided now only where county councils are prepared to take over their management. In other instances accommodation plots have been given to cottiers, to labourers and to others in different walks of life who live not too far away from the land to be divided. Generally speaking, while some of those people who get such plots may make good use of the land, in the vast majority of cases they are people whose way of life is not associated with the utilisation of land.
As time goes on, this question of land user—it is not a proper subject for debate here—will come more and more into play in this country. Already, where migrants are concerned, the question of their ability to use land and their records on their own holdings are taken into consideration by the Government. In these days the question of sending young people to agricultural colleges and of the tie-up with the agricultural committees' advisory services arises. Where land is being divided in an area the person whose record for land user is good will get priority over his less industrious neighbour.
The farm apprenticeship scheme was not turned down by the Government, as I understood Senator Quinlan to allege. It was accepted and I happened to be on a sub-committee which had discussions on it with the NFA. It was accepted by those concerned, including Dr. Duffy, that it was completely wrong to expect the Land Commission to provide holdings for that scheme. Dr. Duffy realised that if you had the son of a farmer with 150 or 200 acres getting a holding from the Land Commission at the expense of local congests, such an individual, as we say in the west, would be eaten without salt. They themselves accepted the scheme, to which the Government are contributing, for farm apprenticeship. I wish them every success with it.
If some other Minister or some other Parliament decides we can wipe out the primary concern of our nation by the solution of the congestion problem, then that Parliament can provide that it should be national policy to take over land for the purpose of giving it to landless men, farmers' sons, trades-men's sons, cottiers, cottiers' sons and all these other categories. But if we are honest with ourselves, we must realise that the sole problem of the Land Commission is to relieve congestion and we must cut our cloth according to our measure. Our national aim must be to deal as quickly as possible with the relief of the remaining congestion in the country. That cannot be done if we widen the scope to include all the categories it is suggested should be considered for land by the Land Commission. Without any amendment of this kind, the law is there, should some Minister for Lands in his wisdom decide that the Land Commission should give land to the categories advocated by the mover of this amendment.
I thought this was a reasonable amendment. We had no intention of eating the Minister, as he said, without salt. Having had his tea, I felt he might exude the milk of human kindness, but he does not seem to be prepared to give way on any of the amendments, and the best we can do is argue them out and put them to a vote, if necessary. The Minister said that if every farmer's son, every cottier and every carpenter's son got land, we were going to leave someone in the congested areas in misery and want. I do not think anyone who spoke in favour of the amendment wanted every farmer's son, every cottier and every carpenter's son to get land. The amendment simply says:
Where it is proved to the satisfaction of the Land Commissioners that a farmer's son 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 thought that very fair and reasonable.
We all agree that the pool of land is very small. If the pool of land is small, that is a further reason for giving it to the people who are making the best possible use of it, both in their own interest and in the national interest. I do not want the sluice gates to open. I do not want every Tom, Dick and Harry to get land. What we want is equal consideration for the farmer's son or the labourer who took land on his own initiative over a number of years, who paid a big price per acre for it, who tilled it and who now has the stock and the capital to work the farm. If the Land Commission consider such people suitable, they should be given a farm. That is as far as we went. Those people had been making their living on the land they had taken. Because of this Bill, many of them will not be in a position to take land in the future, because many people will be reluctant to let land in case it will be taken over in the next couple of years by the Land Commission because it has been let for four or five years.
Senator Killilea stated that people had to be evicted. The Minister stated that some of these people made poor use of the land and in many cases sold it. Senator Killilea mentioned my own county and said some landless people in Westmeath had to be evicted. They had to be evicted because the land was given to the wrong type of people. It was not given to the people who had already proved they could make a success of land
How do you know that? Who is to prove it?
It is quite easy to prove it. Any man who starts off and who, through his own hard work and initiative, now has 15 or 30 acres of land, ten or 20 cows, ten or 15 cattle, 15 or 20 sheep, has proved he can make a success of land. In those cases the land was given to people who had not a penny to jingle on a tombstone. It was given more for political reasons than any other reasons. It was given to the wrong type of people. I believe the farmer's son or the labourer who works himself up is entitled to get an opportunity of becoming a farmer in his own right. When we find those people passed over, it makes mockery of what we speak about so often— equal rights and opportunity for all. Because of the high price of land, these people are unable to compete against foreigners and unable to compete against the Land Commission. As I stated earlier, this Bill will leave less land available for those people to take on the 11-months system.
The present Minister for External Affairs was very much concerned about these people away back in 1950 as were other members of the Fianna Fáil Party. He said at column 269 of the Dáil Debates of 29th March, 1950:
... a farmer who has several sons cannot make economic farmers of them all and he therefore tries to relieve the congestion on his own farm by buying a neighbour's small farm when it comes up for sale.
He said that those people had not a chance to compete against the Land Commission.
Surely that has no relation to what we are discussing?
It certainly has. He was concerned at that time but the Fianna Fáil Party do not seem to be concerned now. He objected to the Land Commission going in and bidding for farms because he said it would put the price of land so high that the farmer with three or four sons would not be in a position to go in and buy one of those farms for one of his sons who would make a success of a farm of land.
You have not a clue.
You had not a clue about the Galway by-election when you were betting with me.
I will have another with you on the Cork one.
Beidh lá eile ag na bPaorach. Mr. Moylan was also concerned about those people in 1949. At column 193, volume 118 of 16th November, 1949, he was very concerned about this question of the Land Commission bidding for land at auctions and leaving it too dear for the farmers to buy it for one of their sons who would make an excellent farmer. He said:
Now, the type of farm which the Minister needs for that particular purpose is the most sought after farm in the country, the small farm or the moderately sized farm. It is the type of farm that a hardworking, successful farmer, with several sons to do for, will seek out. He will try to place one of his sons on that farm at the cost to him of years of toil and sweat. Such a farmer will have to oppose his slender resources against the resources of the State which are at the disposal of the Minister... Whenever such a farm appears on the market, the bidding for it will be brisk and the price will be high. I think it is an undue interference by the State to indulge itself in competition with these deserving people, especially when it will have all the resources of the State behind it as against the very slender resources of these men.
That is the farmer who has three or four sons who could make a success of the land.
I still claim we did not propose to the Minister to open the sluice gates. We did not propose that every Tom, Dick and Harry, every cottier's son and every farmer should get land. But, where it is proved to the Land Commission that a farm worker is a suitable person to acquire land, he should receive equal consideration with other applicants to whom the present Land Acts apply. I am still of that opinion, and if the Minister is not prepared to accept the amendment, it will be put to a vote.
I want to put on the record that what Senator L'Estrange has been quoting from the debates is a speech by the present Minister for External Affairs made in the Dail before which the then Coalition Minister for Lands, ably backed up by the Fine Gael cohorts, made the public claim that under this particular section of the 1950 Act, all the land of Ireland put up for public auction was put up for the relief of congestion.
He did not. I read it.
That was the picture painted by the Minister for Lands. In the event, what happened was land could be purchased by public auction, if it were required for migrants' holdings. Deputy Aiken was undoubtedly wrong in his judgment of what would happen. He was fundamentally wrong in accepting the statements of the then Minister for Lands and his aides because the total amount provided by that Minister in any year for this purpose, the buying of land for the relief of congestion by public auction, was the miserable sum of £19,000.
You are still continuing it.
I am amending it. If the Senator reads the Bill, he will see that I am wiping out that restrictive clause in the 1950 Act.
I support the putting of the amendment to a vote but I want to put the record clear on the farm apprenticeship scheme. I read the first paper on the Apprenticeship Act in 1950 in Sligo and I have worked on it ever since. We had ambitions for something that was worthy of being called farm apprenticeship, not the miserable scholarships of £30 each proposed by the Government, one-quarter of what it cost to get a dental faculty. Surely indeed the mountain laboured and produced a mouse, the miserable caricature of farm apprenticeship produced by the Government.
Thank God, the Senator is not included.
There are a number of interpretations of landless men. I was not advocating that farmers sons should be given farms. I was trying to make a case for the man who could be described as a tenant farmer, men in Donegal who have been taking land for 30 or 40 years and who could be described as farmers but who do not own their land. They built byres and owned machinery and proved that they were as good as the best of farmers. They displayed confidence in Irish agriculture and they were prepared to pay for land year by year and make it an economic proposition. I am glad to hear the Minister indicate that he has a certain sympathy with these people in Donegal and I sincerely trust the Land Commission will be equally sympathetic. There is nothing in the present Act, or Acts, to prevent the Land Commission giving the land even if the Minister accepts Senator L'Estrange's amendment.
As Senator McGlinchey points out, the Minister has indicated there is nothing in the Bill or in the law to prevent the Land Commission from giving land to a landless man if they think fit. Am I correct?
That is the position.
The land must be available, as there would be no division of land if it were not. Can we take it that, in the cases I have indicated where the Land Commission, or somebody else, make representations to the Minister or the officials of the Department of Lands about a case in an area where the Land Commission have acquired a holding of 300 or 400 acres of land in the midlands and on the mearing of this estate for three, four or five years previously a man has been taking land on the 11-months system, when that estate is being divided, he will get equal consideration with any migrants coming from the congested areas? I am concerned with the exception in cases like this. This arises in my constituency and in other counties I know of, and, as I said originally, there are Senators here who have similar cases in mind. If the Minister would give an undertaking that that type of person would be considered where the Land Commission acquire a farm, we would accept it.
Confusion seems to be creeping into the discussion. The Minister and others have stated that the Land Commission have power at the present time under existing Acts to give land to the type of people mentioned in this amendment if they so desire. That may be so, but the practice of the Land Commission at the present time is not to treat them equally and is not to give equal consideration to the type of persons mentioned in this amendment. The point of this amendment is that it calls on the Land Commission to give farmers' sons and farm workers, who are qualified, equal consideration with other applicants. If the Minister gives an undertaking that he is prepared to do that, it would go a long way. There is no use saying the land is there at the moment when that is not being implemented.
I am not prepared to give any undertaking that every farmer's son in this country will be provided with a holding.
The Minister is not asked for that.
The fact remains that the Land Commission could give land to landless men if they think fit. They have in fact given land in cases, as another Senator stated, although these people were landless men. Every claim depends largely on the local situation, the kind of people in close proximity to the lands to be provided and what the Land Commission plans are. What I can say to the House is that if the Land Commission, in their wisdom, decide that X, although he is a landless man, should be considered in relation to a scheme, they are entitled to deal with him and, to my knowledge, they have dealt with such cases in some very exceptional circumstances.
What I am saying and what I have made quite clear is that the job of the Land Commission is to relieve congestion and, considering the smallness of our land pool and what it is likely to be, in every one of those cases where a landless man is brought in, by that very fact a migrant, for instance, may be stopped from coming up who in turn would relieve three or maybe four of his neighbours in a congested area.
That is what I have said. I think that is quite clear and that it is logical. But, as Senators know, this question is decided by the Land Commission and, as the law stands, there is nothing to prevent the Land Commission from giving land to a landless man, if they so decide. I am suggesting, however, that it is being utterly unrealistic on the part of all those people who suggest that farmers' sons and cottiers' sons and everybody else's son should be dealt with where land is to be divided.
There is one point that I want to clear up. The Minister made it clear that cottage holders have no entitlement along the line that I said that I had heard they had. I did not say that they had but that I had heard it stated. I have heard it before today but on today's paper it has been stated by a representative that cottage holders were entitled to plots of about five acres. The Minister has cleared that up, anyway. They have no entitlement. I am assuming, and I do not think it is an unreasonable assumption, that if there is any division of land, where there is a cottage holder, who happens to be using his cottage and who may be a road worker or a farm worker or engaged in agriculture of some kind, he then would be considered. That would not be too much. His would be a different position from that of a man who lived adjacent to an industrial area or a city.
The Minister made the point that there were cottage holders who were not getting their livelihood out of the particular place or, perhaps, were not working it at all, but were in industrial employment. That case would arise, on the one hand where the person concerned lived in a place adjacent to an industry or, on the other hand, where the person had to travel a very long distance to work because he could not get a living out of the acre and the cottage. In some cases cottage holders and landless men and small holders have to rise at 6 a.m. and travel long journeys to be in their place of employment at 8 a.m. They have no objection to that. Perhaps it gives them a better standard of living than they had before, if they happen to be within a practical distance of an industry. There is nothing at all wrong with that but it should not be held against them that they are not, perhaps, working the acre of land to the extent that they might, if they are living convenient to an area where land is being divided.
I fully appreciate that where land is going every single individual within an ass's roar of the place will go all out to get a few acres of a very valuable commodity for nothing. Why should he not? I would be the last to blame him. I want to assure the Senator that there is no provision in any of the Land Acts for cottiers to get five, three or two acres. From time to time, they have been given, perhaps, an acre or an accommodation plot where land was going and they have been given that under the general power which I have already quoted for the House, that the Land Commission can give land, where it is available, to landless men and they have, undoubtedly, from time to time, given to some of these people what we call accommodation plots. But, there is nothing written into the Land Acts giving legal entitlement to any of these people to get land.
The Report of the Irish Land Commissioners for the year to 31st March, 1963, shows how hollow is the claim that landless men receive any consideration. At page 20 of that Report it is shown that out of a total of almost 28,000 acres distributed only 63 acres were given to two landless men. That represented two landless men out of 500. That certainly is not in the spirit of the amendment which asks that they should get much more positive consideration.
I am honest. I do not suggest that every Tom, Dick and Harry who is a landless man can get land, as the Senator does, for local consumption.
Indeed you did, for a number of years. You built your clubs on it, successfully.
The Senator was not so successful with his clubs.
We were, in Roscommon.
Just about the right proportion: satisfactory.
Tá sé maith go leor. You cannot tell us now down the country, when so and so's farm is divided: "You will get part of it." You put it into that. You will have to redraft the policy now and the instructions to the boys.
NEW SECTION
I move amendment No. 6:
Before section 6 to insert a new section as follows:
"Where a farmer on an uneconomic holding is within three miles of land about to be divided by the Land Commissioners, he may receive equal consideration with other applicants to whom the present Land Acts apply."
We all know that, at the present time, no matter how deserving an uneconomic holder may be, if he is over a mile from a holding which is being divided by the Land Commission he does not seem to have a hope: I think that that is the law of the land. I know the case of a farm in West-meath which has been divided. Three unmarried brothers were living together and two of them got farms from the Land Commission. They have not since married. In the same area there were two first-class farmers, one with eight young children and the other with six young children. Because they were a few hundred yards over the one mile they would not be considered for land on the holding in question.
I believe that any married farmer, especially one who has proved himself a first-class farmer, within three miles of a particular holding should be entitled to land.
In my own parish there are two young men who were born in a labourer's cottage; one of them is 26 and the other 24. Through hard work and initiative, they have tractors, dig land for tillage and work it night and day. Both of them have gone to the bank and the bank managers have given them money to buy land. One of them has about 18 acres and the other about 22 acres; one has 15 or 16 cows and the other 23 or 24. Both have four young children. They are a mile and 400 or 500 yards outside a farm of 400 acres that is being divided and they have been told by the local Land Commission Office that they are out. I have made representations on their behalf as have others who have got the same reply. In justice, it would be far better to give a holding of land to two such young men than to give a farm of land to a single man because he happens to be inside the mile.
Those two young men work 16 to 18 hours a day, as anyone in the parish can tell you. They even have the tractor to deliver milk to the creamery and they bring in cattle to the market. They are trying to rear their families in frugal comfort as well as trying to pay back the Land Commission for what they have acquired. They are only hewers of wood and drawers of water. Such people are entitled to an addition of land to bring their holding up to an economic size.
We may be told that it is bad to legislate for particular cases. However, I know of another case of a small farmer. He had a very bad house. He was in at the end of the road with a lake at his back, you might say. He has ten young children. Land within a mile and a half on the main road was being divided and because he was over the mile, he could not get any allocation. It is not a road that leads into his house; it is only a path and his children have to trudge out through the wet and snow to go to school. If this man had been given land, he would have been prepared to build a house out on the main road for himself and his family. We all know that with modern equipment, tractors, and so on, it is possible to work land within a reasonable distance. It might have been all right to say at one time that if land was over a mile away, it would be hard to work it but with tractors it is only one minute's run from one farm to another. I claim that where there are deserving applicants and where they can prove to the Land Commission that they are entitled to land, those cases should be considered.
I must oppose this amendment as I consider it wrong in principle to lay down a statutory distance limit for eligibility for an allotment from the Land Commission. The present general practice is that congests within one mile of the estate to be divided are considered eligible for enlargements. There is nothing statutory about the mile limit and exceptionally the Commissioners may decide to go outside this distance. Even within the one-mile radius, the usual experience is that there are far more eligible applicants than can be accommodated. Increasing the distance limit to three miles therefore would add considerably to the number of applicants. Furthermore, the prospects of those outside the mile distance would not be improved since clearly those who are within this distance and are otherwise suitable would continue to have first claim.
The Senator is in error if he thinks that any person who is within a mile radius of land to be divided gets land. That is not so. The people who are deemed to be the most eligible within that radius are considered, their family circumstances and their history of land user being taken into consideration. A number of years ago on occasions the Land Commission did give additions three or four miles away from people's parent holdings and practically without exception all these cases have a history down through the years of bad user, of the addition being let to some neighbour nearer to it; generally these additions have not worked out and the people who got them have not utilised them.
At all events this is an administrative matter depending upon the position in the area where the land is being divided. There is no law which lays down that the Commissioners can consider only people within one mile. They have the discretion to consider people outside the mile, if they so desire. However, there are usually more people within the mile than can be dealt with and indeed it is common sense from a compact holding point of view that those nearest to the land for division should have priority, other things being equal.
I do not want to tie the hands of the Land Commissioners. I want to enable them to deal with the situation as they find it and, as I said earlier, in each particular place circumstances differ. One cannot take land division schemes and make a general rule about them. They vary from area to area, not alone in the amount and quality of the land to be divided but in the type of applicant living within the radius to which I have referred. The Commissioners having examined the local situation must provide a scheme which, in their view, is the best in the circumstances. It would be unwise and impracticable to set down a statutory limit of the type suggested, tying the hands of the Commissioners as to the people who should be considered in an allotment scheme.
The Minister has stated that this is an administrative matter. He says there is no law which lays down a statutory limit and that the Commissioners have discretion in the matter. I would ask him is this not the policy of the Land Commissioners because if it is not, this is the excuse they make and they make it very often. We also know in respect of another section on which we were arguing here before that there is nothing to stop a landless man or a cottier from getting a farm of land but we also know from the figures quoted by Senator Quinlan that it is only on a very rare occasion they do get land. In any case I welcome the statement by the Minister and I shall try to make full use of it. The majority of these people are entitled to land. I should like to ask the Minister is it the general policy of the Land Commission not to go beyond one mile?
Of course. The general policy and the logical policy of the Land Commission is to give the additions to eligible people within a mile distance. If there are suitable applicants within that distance, it stands to reason that these are the people who would be first dealt with. Indeed, if you passed over good applicants within a mile distance for the purpose of giving a slice to somebody beyond that distance, the Land Commission would be in trouble and the Senator would be the first to question it. The experience of the Land Commission is that in most cases there are far more applicants within the mile distance than can be accommodated. On the other hand, I have seen schemes quite recently where the Land Commission have gone outside the mile distance. Of course, it is their policy, and the House will realise that it is the logical thing and the right thing to do, to keep within the mile distance if you have suitable applicants within that distance so that they will get additions convenient to their holdings which can be properly worked with their existing holdings.
The Minister has stated it is the logical and the right thing to do but in all justice is it the correct thing to give two farms to bachelors and to pass by a man with eight young children because he was some 400 yards outside the mile distance? I cannot agree with that. I think it is unjust.
I cannot accept the allegations or any stories about any particular cases. I would want to know the details about the particular estate, to examine the scheme and the reasons of the officials, who dealt with that particular scheme, for refusing a particular applicant. I have very often discovered, on receiving complaints about a particular scheme, that there were very good reasons why certain people were left out. Indeed, it has been truly said that the best and the most satisfactory Land Commission scheme is the one in which nobody locally is satisfied.
I am very glad to hear the Minister state that the mile is not the be-all and the end-all of the Land Commission when they come to allocate an estate. In very many cases if you happen to be over a mile from the estate to be divided, that is the end of the claim. Very often you can have a small or an uneconomic holder a mile and a half or two miles—I am not giving any specific case but am stating this in general—away from the estate to be divided. This is the last opportunity that uneconomic holder will have of getting an addition to his holding. I feel that in cases of that kind the Land Commission should stretch it a bit so as to ensure that such a person will get an allocation. Otherwise his opportunity of ever getting an addition to his uneconomic holding is over and done with unless he buys land. I am sure the Minister will give sympathetic consideration to matters of this kind.
There is a fundamental conflict between this practical rule of one mile from an estate and the definition of "immediate neighbourhood" in section 35. In section 35 an estate can be taken by the Land Commission, provided it satisfies a number of conditions, one of which is that there is congestion in the immediate neighbourhood. "Immediate neighbourhood" is defined as within three miles of the farm. Therefore, it seems very unfair that an uneconomic holder a mile and a half or two miles from an estate should be the reason for dividing the estate. At the same time, while he has no worthwhile claim on it, it would seem that three miles in modern circumstances is a very short distance. Consequently, it would seem that the Land Commission, in having access to a wider area, would be able to pick better clients for the allotments because they could weigh up all the factors, including the family and all the rest, in arriving at a decision. I am sure that would be more satisfactory and would contribute to fuller development of the land.
I can give the Minister a particular case. I know of a Mr. Farrell, who worked on the Odel estate. He has a wife and six young children. A Deputy made representations on his behalf and he has been informed by the Land Commission he will not get an addition because he is outside the one mile distance. The Deputy is a person who generally tells the truth. That man worked 16 years on the farm and he has six young children. He is about 200 yards over the mile.
How much land has he at the moment?
He has 20 acres.
Does he farm it well?
He does.
I should like to ask the Minister if a Deputy may make representations on behalf of a person? I understood Deputies and Senators were more or less prevented from making representations about the division of land.
The Minister sends out 64,000 replies. I think that is the number he said.
I did not interrupt the Senator. I should like to know how the Land Commission would be foolish enough to tell such a man he was going to get land. As I understand it, when the Land Commission take over an estate, they make out a scheme for it, then come along and divide that land. Up to that time nobody knows who is going to get the land. I do not believe any Land Commissioner, whether a junior or a senior member of the Land Commission, would be so foolish as to tell Deputies or Senators who is going to get land. If he did, he is not worth his job.
I should like to support the amendment because I do not think it right that the Land Commission should be tied down to selecting the best possible applicants from an area of only one mile from an estate. Three miles is mentioned in another part of the Bill. If we leave the uniform distance of three miles in both cases, it would be much more satisfactory and would give the Commissioners a better opportunity and a wider field to pick from to ensure that the best possible candidate is successful.
In the first place, I cannot answer any of the Senator's allegations as to why some people were or were not considered in any particular scheme except to infer from what Senator L'Estrange says that in the particular case to which he refers the Land Commission must have considered that they had a sufficient number of qualified people within the one mile limit. There is no use talking about a man 400 yards beyond the mile limit, a two mile limit or a three mile limit. There must be some limit in some cases. I have already stated the Land Commission are not tied to the one mile limit where they consider that there are not sufficient suitable applicants within that area and consequently they go outside it. If, on the other hand, there is a sufficient number of suitable applicants within the one mile limit, it stands to reason, and it is logical, that these people will be considered first.
There is no analogy at all with the three mile limit, as laid down in another section for the purpose of the definition of congestion in the immediate vicinity of the land. It is evident that some Senators know so little about the work of the Land Commission that they do not realise that the Land Commission in fact in recent years actually migrate people from within three miles of the land to be divided, into that land and create migrants' holdings in it. Indeed, in modern farming conditions, it is far better policy for land user purposes, where a choice arises of going three miles away from the applicant's holding that he probably will be letting to somebody to take that man out and put him on the new holding on the land to be divided and where his lands could be used for the relief of somebody three miles away from the land the Land Commission are dealing with. That change of policy was made by my direction some years ago and has worked very satisfactorily.
In former times the Land Commission did not think they should migrate people such a short distance but the change has worked satisfactorily. It is a logical way of dealing with the matter. Anybody who has made a study of what has happened to additions given to people which were unworkable by reason of the distance they were removed from the parent holding will realise the commonsense of trying to make additions available to those within the immediate vicinity of the land or within one mile radius if these applicants are eligible and regarded as suitable by the Land Commission.
Let me reiterate that it is not true that any individual, whether married or single, no matter what his circumstances, if he is within the one mile limit is automatically entitled to land. That is not so. Time and again while examining and consulting files to ascertain the reasons of the Land Commission in preparing a division scheme and to find out why A, B or C, within the one-mile limit came to be excluded, I found the Land Commission had very good reasons for excluding these people—because of family circumstances or family history, bad land usage or perhaps they were not mainly, wholly or even partially dependent for their livelihood on the land. The simple answer to all this is that where the Land Commission find, within the one mile distance, that they have a sufficient number of suitable applicants, these get the land. I submit to the House that is the logical and proper procedure. In the case where there are not sufficient applicants within the one mile limit, the Land Commission are not bound to that limit, and they do from time to time go outside it. I suggest it has been found to be and is bad policy to give additions of land to people such a distance away from the parent holding that they do not work them.
I move amendment No. 7:
In subsection (1), line 6, to delete "elderly" and substitute "over 65 years".
I cannot see why a definition is not given of eligibility. It would seem that something like "over 65" would meet the case. I do not like to see such resort to orders and regulations at every hand's turn and 65 is the retiring age in most employments and would seem to be the natural one here. There is the escape clause for a man who is incapacitated which is contained elsewhere in the Bill. I suggest that "elderly" be replaced by the words "over 65".
This is a completely new idea that we are introducing for the first time, and like all new ideas, we need some experience of its working. I want to leave the situation very flexible. I do not want to define, or tie myself or the Land Commission by any age limits and definitions of who is elderly. It may well be that in one case a person of 65 is as virile as a man half his age—perhaps more virile. On the other hand a man of 60, or less, or a woman of 55 possibly not in the best of health may not make the best use of land. I want the Land Commission to be free to use their discretion in cases of this kind to try to induce such people to take a pension and give up their lands for the benefit of their neighbours. If the amendment were accepted, it would tie the hands of the Land Commission in dealing with the innumerable types of cases that arise in rural Ireland and with which this section is designed to deal.
But surely under subsection (5) (b) (1) of this section, the Minister, in consultation with the Minister for Finance, must face the problem of deciding what is meant and prescribing the classes of persons who for the purposes of the section shall be deemed to be elderly, incapacitated or blind. The first step in implementing the section, once the Bill is passed, is for the two Ministers concerned to decide who are elderly, incapacitated, or blind. I agree with the Minister that he would wish to have this provision flexible and I see no reason whatever why a flexible definition could not be written into the Bill. I do not see why two Ministers must sit on this point and why both Houses, guided by the Minister, cannot put in a flexible definition. If the Minister thinks 65 is too high, let him by all means reduce it and if he wishes to cater for widows, he can put in something like a widow of 50 or a man of 60. It is a very minor point of flexibility on which to call in two Ministers.
I suggest this might be got over by a slight change in the wording of the section or subsection. Not only have you to define who is elderly but you might equally have to define who is incapacitated and who is blind because there are many forms of lack of sight which are not total blindness. I think a phrase like "incapacitated by old age or infirmity from carrying out the work of the farm" might meet Senator Quinlan's point.
I think it would meet the case to say "persons who in the judgment of the Land Commission, are elderly, incapacitated or blind".
It is true that there are regulations to be made dealing with this matter. I remind Senators again that there is another connotation in connection with the word "blind" here. Land Commission pensions under this Bill will not be taken into account in the assessment of means under the old age pensions code up to £3 per week. There are certain pensions under the social welfare code for certain types of blind people. That is why we added "blind". It might be thought by some Senators that "incapacitated" would cover the lot, but we thought it better to add "blind". While it is true, as one Senator suggested, that some blind people, or people who are termed blind people, are incapacitated, there are others who are partially blind and are not considered incapacitated. It will be possible for us to change these regulations in accordance with experience of the working of the section and my aim is to try to keep them as flexible as possible.
We could not possibly deal with this matter by writing in all conceivable types of case and instances we might meet of people who are partially incapacitated, be they young or old, people who for one reason or another are not fully able to utilise their land, and who may be agreeable to take pensions under these regulations. They may be agreeable to take partial pensions if they are left in their dwelling house, and so forth. I suggest to the House that the best thing is to leave it the way the Dail left it. Certainly I can visualise a number of cases in which people under 65 years would be regarded as elderly for our purposes. I do not want to tie the hands of the Land Commission in the operation of the section which, may I remind the House again, is a voluntary section inasmuch as the person concerned must agree to accept the pension for the surrender of his land. This is another inducement section, and there is nothing compulsory about it. There is no question of the Land Commission taking any power to compel any of these people to accept the pensions which are contemplated under this section, or under these regulations.
At this stage I do not want to write in any figure which would tie the hands of the Land Commission in considering who may be elderly. We will endeavour to work out regulations and to leave this as flexible as possible to enable the Land Commission to deal with the one hundred and one different conditions they may find, depending on the family circumstances of the people they will try to induce to take an annuity. I suggest that the section should be left as it is.
Why not leave it completely to the Land Commission? Far bigger decisions are left to them: decisions on allotments and so forth. Why not leave it completely flexible and completely in the hands of the Land Commission to say who in their opinion is incapacitated, elderly or blind?
I recommend that the Minister should consider the suggestion made by Senator Jessop before Report Stage, because I am always afraid of lawyers dealing with things afterwards. To my mind, the word "blind" is most emphatic and descriptive. I suggest there should be more elasticity in the wording.
If the Minister would agree to reconsider it before Report Stage, it might be possible to leave it completely to the Land Commission and have the maximum flexibility.
