Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 25 Jun 1953

Vol. 139 No. 14

Committee on Finance. - Vote 47—Lands.

An tAire Tailte (Tomás Ó Deirg)

Tairgim:—

Go ndeonfar suim nach mó ná £1,104,090 chun slánuithe na suime is gá chun íoctha an Mhuirir a thiocfas chun bheíth iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31ú lá de Mhárta, 1954, chun Tuarastal agus Costas Oifig an Aire Tailte agus Oifig Choimisiún Talún na hÉireann (44 & 45 Vict., c. 49, alt 46, agus c. 71, alt 4; 48 & 49 Vict., c. 73, ailt 17, 18 agus 20; 54 & 55 Vict., c. 48; 3 Edw. 7, c. 37; 7 Edw. 7, c. 38 agus c. 56; 9 Edw. 7, c. 42; Uimha. 27 agus 42 de 1923; Uimh. 25 de 1925; Uimh. 11 de 1926; Uimh. 19 de 1927; Uimh. 31 de 1929; Uimh. 11 de 1931; Uimha. 33 agus 38 de 1933; Uimh. 11 de 1934; Uimh. 41 de 1936; Uimh. 26 de 1939; Uimh. 12 de 1946; Uimh. 25 de 1949; agus Uimh. 16 de 1950).

That a sum not exceeding £1,104,090 be granted to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1954, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Offices of the Minister for Lands and of the Irish Land Commission(44 & 45 Vict., c. 49, sec. 46, and c. 71, sec. 4; 48 & 49 Vict., c. 73, secs. 17, 18 and 20; 54 & 55 Vict., c. 48; 3 Edw. 7, c. 37; 7 Edw. 7, c. 38 and c. 56; 9 Edw. 7, c. 42; Nos. 27 and 42 of 1923; No. 25 of 1925; No. 11 of 1926; No. 19 of 1927; No. 31 of 1929; No. 11 of 1931; Nos. 33 and 38 of 1933; No. 11 of 1934; No. 41 of 1936; No. 26 of 1939; No. 12 of 1946; No. 25 of 1949; and No. 16 of 1950.

Tabharfaidh an Teach faoi deara go bhfuil sa Mheastachán glan, £1,918,930, don Roinn Tailte le haghaidh na bliana seo £117,460, de mhéadú ar an méid iomlán a vótáladh anuraidh. Faoi na fo-mhírchinn A agus I is mó a tharla an méadú sin.

Fo-mhírcheann A—£553,669: Faoin bhfo-mhírcheann seo, a bhaineas le tuarastail, páigh agus liúntaisí, tá £20,968 de bhreis ar an méid bunaidh a vótaladh anuraidh nó £33,463 de bhreis ar an vóta glan tar eís airgead a spáráladh d'úsaid chun críocha eile sa Mheastachán Forlíontach. An gnáthmhéadú ar thuarastail agus páigh is cúis leis an mbreis sin. Chomh maith leis sin tá soláthar ann i gcóir seachtar cigirí lena gcur in ionad oifigeach a tugadh ar iasacht le haghaidh oibre éile; ceapfar na digirí sin a luaithe is féidir. Ceapadh 22 cigiré nua i rith na bliana seo caite chun folúntais a líonadh.

Fo-mhírcheann B—£37,000: Tá méadú £5,000 faoin bhfo-mhírcheann seo mar gheall ar ardú ar na rátaí, na liúntas taistil agus cothuithe, faoi mar a húdaraíodh roint mhí ó shoin agus mar gheall ar an obair lasmuigh do dhul i méid de bharr cigirí breise a cheapadh.

Fo-mhírcheann E—£9,500; Déantar soláthar anseo le haghaidh na gcostas dlíthiúla a bhaineas le Brainse an Aturnae, lena n-áirítear costais únaeraí agus tionóntaí atá iníoctha ag Coimisiún na Talún in imeachta chun talamh a thogaint agus d'athghabháil. Tá meastachán na blíana seo £500 níos lú ná an soláthar iomlán a rinneadh i Meastachán bunaidh agus i Meastachán Forlíontach na bliana seo caite.

Fo-mhírchinn H1, H2 agus H3— £800,500. Tá breis agus 40% den Mheastachán glan don Roinn Tailte curtha in áirithe do na fo-mhírchinn seo chun easnaimh áirithe i gCiste na mBannaí Talún a shlánú. Leanann na heasnaimh seo as dhá leath a dhéanamh de bhlianachtaí, sin suim £667,400 sa bhliain seo, agus as cabhair eile ón Stát chun talamh a cheannach, e.g., ciste costas agus bónas reachtúil do dhaoine a dhíolas eastát de bhreis agus de bharr ar an bpraghas is iníoctha ag na tionóntaí a cheannaíos iad.

Na híocaíochtaí a déantar i leith úis agus ciste fiachmhúchta is muirir aisfhillteacha iad agus, do réir mar bhéas socrú na talún ag dui ar aghaidh, cruthnaítear muirir nua a bheir méadú i bhfo-mhírchinn H 1 agus H 3; meastar go dtabharfaidh roínnt na mblianachtaí £8,900 de mhéadú i mbliana i bhfo-mhírcheann H.

Fo-mhírcheann I—£615,000: Faoin bhfo-mhircheann seo soláthraítear cistí chun eastáit d'fheabhsú agus de ghnáth is gá chuige sin foirgintí d'athchóiriú, bóithre, claíocha, silteáin, etc. a dhéanamh. Is é an fo-mhircheann seo is fearr a léiríos an méid oibre atá á dhéanamh maidir le socrú talún. Toise a bhfuil á dhéanamh chun an cúngrach i gcúrsaí talún a laghdú trí dhaoine d'aistriú agus trí ghabháltas d'athshocrú, bíonn costas mór ag baint leis an bhfo-mhírcheann seo, go háirithe ar fhoirgintí. Anuraidh méadaíodh an vóta bunaidh, £480,000, trí £80,000 sa bhreis a sholáthar agus caitheadh é go léir is é sin £560,000; sin an méid is mó a caitheadh riamh ó 1939/40 i leith agus níor sáraíodh an tsuim sin ach sa bhliain sin agus sna trí bliana roimhe. I mbliana táimid ag brath ar thuilleadh fós a chaitheamh agus tá méadú £55,000 sa bhfo-mhírcheann chuige sin. An méid atá dá iarraidh, £615,000, is ionann é beagnach agus an tríú cuid den ghlan-Mheastachán don Roinn. Ach ní hamháin gur gné fíor-riachtanach de shocrú na talún na hoibreacha feabhsuithe ach ina theannta sin cuirtear a lán fostáiochta ar fáil dá mbarr sna ceantair chúnga.

Fo-mhírcheann K—£500. Tá soláthar i bhfo-mhírcheann K le haghaidheasnamh a tharlaíos nuair a híoctar éilimh Stáit i mbannaí talún do réir ainm-luach iomlán bannaí a díoltar faoi lascaine. Anuraidh híocadh roinnt éileamh móra ar an geaoi sin agus bhí gá le soláthar mór £2,000 faoin mírcheann. Tá laghdú £1,500 dá réir sin ar an Meastachán i mbliana. Mar is eol do na Teachtaí, tá an Bille Talún (Uimh. 2), 1952, atá anois os comhair an tSeanaid, ceaptha lena dheimhniú go bhfanfaidh sreathanna nua bannaí talún ag par nó gar dó ar feadh tréimhse réasúnta tar éis a geruthuithe.

Fo-mhírcheann N—£5,840: Tá soláthar faoi fho-mhírcheann N i gcóir £5,532 de bhreis sna suimeana caipitiúla a hairleacfar chun cistí a bhunú le caladhphoirt agus oibreacha eile a chothabháil. Ní bhíonn an caiteachas céanna faoin bhfo-mhírcheann seo i gceist gach bliain, agus ní hionann an méid airgid a bhíos ag teastáil ó bhliain go bliain. Is de bharr súil a bheith le bunú dhá chiste thábhachtacha i mbliana atá an soláthar méadaithe.

Fo-mhírcheann Q—£1,300: Slánaítear as fo-mhírcheann Q easnaimh áirithe i gcistí de leithéid Chiste na nIasacht Aitiúla agus Ciste na mBannaí Talún. Tarlaíonn na heasnaimh sin ar íocaíochtaí chun na gcistí sin ar thailte a thóg Coimisiún na Talún d'fhorceannadh. Cuirtear blianachtaí nua ar na tailte in ionad na n-íocaíochtaí a forceannadh. Is muirear bliantúil carnaítheach an muirear ar fho-mhírcheann Q agus tá coinne le méadú £650 i mbliana.

Fo-mhírcheann R—£20,000: Bhí an tsuim £20,000 a cuireadh ar fáil anuraidh faoi fho-mhírcheann R, chun talamh a cheannach ar ceantanna agus trí ghnóthaíocht phríobháideach, iomarcach agus baineadh £5,000, a measadh a sábhálfaí, aisti tríd an Mheastachán Forlíontach; tá an tsuim iomlán á soláthar aris i mbliana. Anuraidh ceannaíodh 11 ghabháltas ina raibh 328 acraí; is é sin le rá gur ceannaíodh san iomlán, ó ritheadh an tAcht Talún, 1950, 16 ghabháltas ina raibh 519 acraí. Níl an oiread talún le fáil ag Coimisiún na Talún ar an modh seo agus ceapadh.

Fo-mhírcheann S—£2,500: Tá méadú £500 ar fho-mhírcheann S thar an nglan-tsoláthar a rinneadh anuraidh chun aiscí d'íoc le daoine a cuireadh as fostaíocht de bharr gníomhartha Choimisiún na Talún. Do híocadh aiscí dár mhéid £2,288 anuraidh le hocht nduine dhéag a cuireadh as fostaíocht. O ritheadh an tAcht Talún, 1950, go dtí deireadh Márta, 1953, tugadh aiscí dár mhéid £5,904 do chaoga duine, is é sin meán £118 an duine. Is ábhar eiscithe atá faoi chúram na gCoimisinéirí cinneadh méid aon aisce den tsórt sin a chinneadh.

The House will notice that the net Estimate of £1,918,930 for lands for the current year shows an increase of £117,460 over the total amount— original and supplementary—voted last year. The increase arises mainly under sub-heads A and I.

Sub-head A—£553,669: Under sub-head A, for salaries, wages and allowances, the increase is £20,968 on the amount originally voted last year or £35,463 on the net Vote after savings had been applied for other purposes in the Supplementary Estimate. This increase is chiefly due to normal incremental increases in salaries and wages. There is also provision for seven additional inspectors to replace officers seconded for other work; these inspectors will be appointed as speedily as possible. To fill vacancies 22 inspectors were newly recruited during the past year.

Sub-head B—£37,000: An increase of £5,000 under sub-head B is due to higher rates of travelling and subsistence allowances authorised some months ago and to increased outdoor activity following the recruitment of additional inspectors.

Sub-head E—£9,500: Sub-head E provides for the incidental legal expenses of the solicitor's branch including costs of owners and tenants payable by the Land Commission in proceedings for the acquisition and resumption of land. The current year's Estimate shows a reduction of £500 on the total provision made in last year's original and Supplementary Estimates.

Sub-heads H (1), H (2) and H (3)— £800,500: More than 40 per cent. of thenet Estimate for Lands is allocated to sub-heads H (1), H (2) and H (3) for making good certain deficiencies in the Land Bond Fund. These deficiencies arise from the halving of annuities, amounting to £667,400 in the current year, and from other State aids to land purchase, e.g., costs fund and statutory bonus to vendors of estates over and above the price payable by the tenant purchasers. The payments in respect of interest and sinking fund on land bonds are recurring charges and, as the land settlement programme proceeds, additional charges are created which result in increases in sub-heads H (1) and H (3); the estimated increase this year in sub-head H (3) for halving of annuities is £8,900.

Sub-head I—£615,000: Under sub-head I funds are provided for the improvement of estates and generally this involves the erection and reconditioning of buildings, construction of roads, fences, drains, etc. This sub-head, more than any other, reflects the extent of land settlement activities. Concentration on the relief of congestion by migration and rearrangement involves heavy expenditure under this sub-head, particularly on buildings. Last year the original Vote of £480,000 was supplemented by a further provision of £80,000 and the total of £560,000 was fully spent; this expenditure was the highest since 1939/40 and was exceeded only in that and the three preceding years. This year a still higher target is aimed at and the sub-head shows an increase of £55,000. The amount sought, £615,000, represents almost one-third of the net Estimate for Lands. The improvement works, however, not only form an essential part of land settlement operations but also provide a substantial amount of employment in the congested districts.

Sub-head K—£500: Sub-head K provides for deficiencies which arise when State claims are met in land bonds at the full nominal value of bonds which are sold at a discount. Last year a few large claims met in this way necessitated an exceptional provision of £2,000 under the sub-head. The Estimate of £500 for the current year therefore shows a reduction of £1,500. As Deputies are aware, the Land (No. 2)Bill, 1952, now before the Seanad, is designed to secure that future series of land bonds will remain at or near par for a reasonable time after their creation.

Sub-head N—£5,840: An increase of £5,532 in the capital sums to be advanced for the establishment of funds for the maintenance of embankments and other works is provided for in sub-head N. Expenditure under this sub-head is non-recurring and the requirements fluctuate from year to year. Two important funds which are expected to be set up this year account for the increased provision.

Sub-head Q—1,300: Certain deficiencies in funds such as the Local Loans Fund and Land Bond Fund are made good out of sub-head Q. These deficiencies arise on the termination of payments charged on lands taken over by the Land Commission and destined for such funds. The payments terminated are replaced by new annuities on the lands. The charge to sub-head Q is recurring and cumulative and an increase of £650 is expected this year.

Sub-head R—£20,000: The sum of £20,000 provided last year under sub-head R, for the purchase of land at auctions and by private treaty, proved to be in excess of requirements and an estimated saving of £5,000 was deducted in connection with the Supplementary Estimate; this amount is being restored for the current year. Last year 11 holdings containing 328 acres were purchased bringing the total since the passing of the Land Act, 1950, to 16 holdings containing 519 acres. This source of land for Land Commission purposes is not proving as fruitful as originally expected.

Sub-head S—£2,500: Sub-head S shows an increase of £500 over last year's net provision for the payment of gratuities to persons displaced from employment by Land Commission operations. Gratuities amounting to £2,288 were paid last year to 18 ex-employees. From the passing of the Land Act, 1950, to the end of March, 1953, 50 persons had been awardedgratuities amounting to £5,904 which represents an average of £118 per person. The determination of the amount of any such gratuity is an excepted matter reserved to the commissioners.

Other sub-heads: The amounts being provided under the other sub-heads of the Vote vary, if at all, to a small extent from last year's figures. As these sub-heads do not seem to call for any special comment at this stage, I shall pass on to deal, in a more general way, with the activities of the Land Commission for the completion of land purchase and land settlement.

Vesting: With a view to accelerating the completion of land purchase by vesting in tenants and allottees, the Vesting Branches of the Land Commission were reorganised within the past seven years. Holdings, allotments and rights of turbary vested in the meantime exceed 100,000 which represents almost half the total vesting output of the past 30 years. As a result of this very creditable progress, the number of outstanding cases has been reduced to about 55,000 (including rights of turbary). Unfortunately, a large percentage of these cases require rearrangement, improvement, or clarification of title and settlement of boundaries before vesting. As the elimination of these obstacles will prove tedious, vesting cannot in future be expected to proceed with the same rapidity as in recent years. Last year's vestings numbered more than 13,300, made up of 7,257 holdings, 4,315 parcels and 1,801 rights of turbary. For the current year it is expected that the vesting output will exceed 10,000 cases.

Land Settlement, 1952/53: In the sphere of land settlement, the Land Commission are concentrating on the relief of congestion and particularly the rearrangement of intermixed holdings in the scheduled congested districts. With a view to making land available for these purposes, preliminary reports were obtained during the year ended 31st March last in respect of 42,000 acres of land while detailed inspections and valuations were made of 47,900 acres. Inevitably, considerable areas proved to be unsuitable or unavailablefor Land Commission purposes. Acquisition or resumption proceedings were initiated for 23,800 acres and at the end of the year the Land Commission had proceedings in respect of 61,000 acres. During the year the Land Commission took over 28,800 acres of land for allotment purposes and allotted an area of 25,300 acres to over 1,700 allottees. Of these 1,700 allottees about 1,000 were smallholders who had their holdings improved by enlargement and a further 400 tenants had their holdings rearranged and enlarged into compact working units. An additional 144 were migrated to new holdings in non-congested areas. Thus during the past year some 1,500 congests were provided for. Were it not for the inability of some contractors to complete buildings before the end of the financial year and the last-minute refusal of certain selected tenants to migrate, a further 47 holdings comprising about 2,000 acres would have been allotted to migrants last year; most of these have since been allotted.

Migration is a difficult and slow process but it is an essential feature of land settlement as there is little untenanted land left in the congested districts for the enlargement of the smallholdings there. The solution of the problem in the congested districts lies therefore in the acquisition of land in non-congested areas, the striping of the land into economic holdings, the equipment of each holding with a dwelling, out-offices, fences, water-supply, access, the migration of tenants from the congested districts to such holdings and finally the utilisation of the migrants' surrendered lands for the enlargement and rearrangement of adjacent smallholdings, which, in turn, generally require improvement of buildings, etc. None of these stages can be speedily completed; land acquisition has to proceed under statutory provisions with due allowance for objections and appeals. The circumstances of uneconomic holders and others affected have to be carefully investigated. Buildings take time to erect. In fact, all stages of the work require competent and tactful handling from beginning to end. Inevitably, in the lay-out of any congested townland there are "key"holdings, the acquisition of which by the Land Commission would greatly facilitate rearrangement and give general satisfaction, but these holdings can only be secured by migration as a general rule. Consequently, before migrants are selected from an area, it is necessary to establish which are the "key" holdings and this entails careful inquiry as well as the framing of tentative proposals to discover how resettlement can best be effected. If the tenant of a "key" holding is willing to migrate, well and good, but if he is unwilling, alternative selections may have to be made, involving the recasting of proposals and, unfortunately, this often leads to disappointments, misunderstandings, and unmerited criticism of the officials entrusted with this difficult work.

In some congested townlands if the "key" holdings become available, conditions can be remedied simply by providing enlargements, without the need for rearrangements at all. Where this is possible so much the better. The primary consideration in the selection of a migrant must therefore be the use which can be made of his surrendered lands but it will be obvious that the personal circumstances of the migrant and his family will also be of considerable importance.

Sub-division: The principal cause of the acute congestion which exists in some areas is the excessive and uncontrolled sub-division of holdings which took place in the days of the landlords. Not alone were small holdings sub-divided among members of families but individual fields were divided to give each member a portion of the good as well as the poor land. Extreme sub-division resulted in the condition of unfenced intermixed plots known as rundale. To prevent the creation of further congestion in this manner, the Land Commission were empowered to control the sub-division of holdings and this branch of the non-productive work of the Land Commission is of the utmost importance. Were control not carefully exercised, there would be the anomaly of the Land Commission relieving congestion at considerable expense while further congestion was being created without restraint. In fact, if sub-divisionwere unrestricted, holdings created for the relief of congestion could be broken up into several uneconomic or congested holdings which in turn would require enlargement and perhaps rearrangement. By the judicious exercise of their power to refuse consent to sub-division, the Land Commission every year prevent the creation of many uneconomic holdings; it is essential that this control should be continued. Applications for consent to sub-division in 3,289 cases were dealt with last year and 70 were refused.

The position as regards the collection of annuities continues to be highly satisfactory. The arrear at the 31st March last was £152,000 or .3 per cent. (point three of one per cent.) of the total amount collectable since 1953.

Before passing from this review of the Land Commission activities, I should like to pay a tribute to the inspectorate staff. A Land Commission inspector's job is no sinecure. His duties are many and varied, requiring technical knowledge, skill, patience and tact. He must be competent to value land, define boundaries, frame schemes of resettlement, plan and estimate for all types of improvement works and carry out delicate negotiations with cautious and often recalcitrant tenants. His is the impossible task of trying to satisfy everybody. Anxiety to carry out his duties as effectively and satisfactorily as possible often leads to long hours of arduous work. The good progress made by the Land Commission in the work I have outlined, is largely due to the ability and industry of the inspectors in the field.

Deputies will realise from this brief survey that very satisfactory progress was made last year in all spheres of Land Commission activity. Much still remains to be done for the relief of congestion and, for the current year, we all look forward to solid and sustained achievement. The importance of the work needs no emphasis. The necessary funds are provided in the Estimate which I now recommend to the House.

Mr. Finan

In the unavoidable absence of Deputy Blowick, I movethat the Estimate be referred back for reconsideration. I want to say first of all that I endorse the concluding remarks of the Minister with regard to the inspectorate staff. It was a tribute I had intended to pay myself. I know that the outdoor staff of the Land Commission are a highly competent body of men, thoroughly reliable and trustworthy. Frankly, I think that the division of whatever land is available in the country might be safely left in their hands. However, I am afraid that the energy and the activity which the members of the outdoor staff put into their work have not been fully availed of by the Land Commission at headquarters. Every day I am an eye-witness of these inspectors going around inspecting lands which are available for acquisition and reallocation. I have no doubt that the Land Commission files will prove that there are several thousand acres of land in this country lying derelict which could be in full production if given to suitable allottees. In every county—I am talking about the West of Ireland; I am not acquainted with conditions in other parts of Ireland—there are several thousand acres of deserted or abandoned holdings—small, I admit—which could be taken over by the Land Commission and given to people who would be glad to have and to use them.

This Estimate of the Department of Lands is one of the most important the House could consider because it affects vitally and intimately the three most serious evils the country is suffering from at present—emigration, unemployment and the high cost of living. It has a very definite bearing on these three matters. Every year we have young people emigrating from the West, men who would make excellent farmers if given a chance but who see no hope of ever becoming holders of lands, men who were born, bred, reared and trained on the farm. When it comes to the point at which one member of the family wishes to marry, the others must get out, and no matter how we may bend our energies here to developing the secondary industries, until we place the maximum number of people on the land we are labouring invain. I do not want it to be understood from that that I decry or belittle in any way the importance of developing the manufacturing arm, but it is not the way to begin. You must begin with the land and place the maximum number of people on it. You must build up production, and in order to do that you must give a man an interest in his own holding and let him throw his energies into it.

I mentioned here recently that I thought it a pity that this country would not adopt the system in operation in Denmark. I understand that, in Denmark, if a man wants to settle down on land, he goes to the appropriate Government Department and says: "I am anxious to marry, to settle down and make my livelihood on land. Will you provide me with a holding?" They have a panel of holdings from which a man may make a selection and he repays an annuity over 50 or 60 years. He settles down and becomes a good husbandman and an asset to the country. Should we not operate in this country something on a similar basis, enabling a man to go into the local Land Commission office and select his holding from a panel of holdings available there—and the land is available if the Land Commission would take it over—and repay the Land Commission over a long term? Is there not there one remedy, one solution of part of the problem of emigration? The best possible type of people you can have are the young farmers' sons who would settle down and become good citizens rather than emigrate to seek a livelihood elsewhere.

I am not blaming the Minister for the fact that that system does not operate, but it is a matter which I seriously suggest he and the Land Commission should consider, because I think there is there scope for dealing with this very important problem. I am not suggesting that all farmers' sons would make good farmers—I refer to those who have an aptitude for it, those who have a liking for life on the land—and if one were to compute the amount of food that would have been produced by the number of farmers' sons who have emigrated in past years,one would realise how much the country is losing through the loss of these people.

The Land Commission would be wise to get notice of intentions to sell in advance. I do not suggest that I want any interference with the private sale, with free sale by a farmer of his land, but it would be desirable where it is the intention of a farmer to dispose of his land that he should indicate, in the first instance, to the Land Commission his intention to do so, because I know of many cases where lands were offered for sale which would have been very useful and necessary for the Land Commission had the Land Commission known in advance that these lands were to be sold. While it might be a dangerous precedent to establish to make it a condition that anybody intending to dispose of his land should acquaint the Land Commission, it would be very desirable if, without bringing any force to bear, the Land Commission would indicate generally that they would wish to know in advance from any farmer who intends to sell his land.

I can readily understand the reluctance on the part of some farmers to give this indication, because I do not deny that in the past the Land Commission paid very poor compensation for land. In some cases it was more like confiscation than compensation, but those were the days when land was not as valuable as it is now. I do know, however, that efforts are being made to frustrate the Land Commission in the acquisition of land. In some cases, the Land Commission negotiated for the acquisition of land and found on appeal that they could not acquire it and subsequently these lands were disposed of, to the great disappointment of local congests. The machinery does not work well for the reason that, when a man appeals against the decision of the Land Commission is not represented at the appeal, so that the appellant can put forward excuses and objections which are not always accurate.

To illustrate what I mean, I know an instance in which the Land Commission proposed to acquire 50 per cent. of a man's holding. He appealedagainst that decision, and, when the appeal was heard, he alleged that the particular portion the Land Commission proposed to acquire contained the only source of water supply on the land. That was not a fact at all, but it was accepted by the Appeal Tribunal, and the appeal was upheld. Would that not be a case where the Land Commission would be entitled to be represented by an inspector acquainted with the holding to refute a suggestion of that kind? It is most unfair, or, at any rate, unwise, that only one party to a dispute should be heard, and it is a matter that will have to be put right.

We know, too, that fictitious values have been put on land by the Appeal Tribunal. The result is that the Appeal Tribunal fixes a price which the Land Commission is not prepared to pay and they withdraw proceedings. If these things are permitted to continue I do not see much hope of the Land Commission acquiring land. Even where the Land Commission has come to a decision to acquire land, the owner promptly puts his land up for sale by public auction, obviously with two objects in view: he either hopes to get a fictitious value placed on his land since he knows quite well the land cannot be sold, but he hopes to get a very high value placed on it so that when he goes before the court the court will accept that as evidence of the market value of the land and will fix a price which the Land Commission cannot afford to pay and they will withdraw proceedings. Therefore, he has two chances: he will either get abnormally high compensation or proceedings will be withdrawn and he will be left his land.

I am sure it is very disheartening to the outdoor staff of the Land Commission, who are genuinely anxious to settle this problem, to be defeated of their object in that way and frankly I sympathise with them in their efforts. I am sure the Land Commission must be fully aware of the artifices that are being resorted to and I think it is high time steps were taken to combat such artifices for otherwise there is very little hope for these people who have been waiting in many cases for yearsand years for the acquisition of land so that they may be relieved of congestion.

I have heard long debates here as to what constitutes an economic holding. I do not think we will ever be in a position to say what an economic holding is because varying factors have to be taken into consideration and much depends upon the type of agriculture pursued. A small holding will suffice for one particular farmer. Another farmer will want a much larger tract of land. In the vicinity of a town a man may be able to make a relatively good living out of a very small holding. In a remote district he may find it very difficult to eke out a livelihood. The size of an economic holding is not important. What is important is the placing on the land of the maximum number of people and wherever and whenever that can be done it should be done. There is no reasonable hope of settling the land problem in the congested areas within the congested areas although much can be done to relieve the situation by utilising the deserted holdings to which I have already referred. Much could be done to enlarge and rearrange holdings in that connection but there is not enough land available to solve the problem in its entirety. I have no doubt that with the increased compensation which the Land Commission is now paying, a considerable amount of land could be acquired in the congested areas. I do not stand for one moment, nor does any member of my Party, for the victimisation of any landholder in any way. I believe the man from whom land is taken should get the full market value for that land. That is his right. Even if the Land Commission or the taxpayers were to lose on the resale price of that land—lose to a considerable extent—in the national interest it would still be a good investment. Any man from whom land is taken by the Land Commission is entitled to its full value.

I believe a reasonable amount of land is sufficient for anyone. It is not a good practice to take a man from a tiny holding and put him into a very large one. A man can be completely swamped like that. Many people thinkthat no training is needed for living on the land. That is one of the greatest fallacies ever propounded. A man working on the land is learning every day and will continue to learn as long as he remains on the land. There is always something new to be learned on the land. Believing that the one with the least brains is the one to put on the land is the greatest mistake that can be made.

Where there is a townland with a large number of congests and one or two comparatively large landowners, the Land Commission inspectors should approach these large landholders and ask them to migrate to a better holding elsewhere so that their lands can be utilised for the relief of local congestion. Those who have been accustomed to working fairly large holdings will be able to work larger holdings elsewhere. It is a mistake to take the man with £10 valuation in the West of Ireland and put him into County Meath on a £100 valuation holding. That achieves no purpose. Indeed, I doubt if such a man would be able to make a livelihood. I believe the best solution is to get the larger farmers in the congested areas to migrate and divide their lands for the relief of local congestion.

When the Land Commission has acquired land there is very often a long delay before the land is allocated. I can understand delay in the acquisition of land because questions of title are involved. I can understand that matters like that require the greatest care and the widest possible search. But when the Land Commission has acquired land, is there any justification for the Land Commission turning itself into a landlord and letting that land out in conacre for eight, ten or 12 years at fabulous rents? That is one thing I cannot understand at all. I know the Land Commission to hold land for 17 years in my county. I know land in my county that has been held for 12 years and the local congests are waiting all the time.

Mr. Derrig

Had they not the use of the land?

Mr. Finan

At a good price, £5 per acre. If they buy their meadow at £10an acre, they have to graze the lighter cattle at £5 an acre and the heavier cattle at £7 an acre. They are paying a very good rent to the Land Commission. I can only see one reason for it, whether I am right or wrong, and that is that the Land Commission would lose money on the allocation of this land and they, therefore, hold the land for this period in order to lessen the loss. If that is not the reason I do not know what is, and if it is the reason I do not agree with it. If the land was allocated a man would pay a rent for it and the amount he would pay to the Land Commission for the grazing of two cattle would more than pay the rent for any additional land he would get. The one acre of meadow which he buys from the Land Commission will cost him more than any additional land he will get. I cannot see how the Land Commission in that particular matter can claim to be anything better than the much defamed landlord of old.

I also found that in many cases when the Land Commission acquired land they said it would be provided with a water supply but they did not say when. In many parts of my county the people got land but it was land without water. Land without water is not of any use. If a man has to cart water, seven, eight or ten miles to his cattle, or if he has to drive cattle that distance, land is not of much value to him. I understand that some time ago the Land Commission realised the seriousness of this and provided themselves with up-to-date equipment for the boring of pumps or wells. In fact, I understand that they interviewed some applicants to work that machinery. What has become of that?

Mr. Derrig

There are two machines.

Mr. Finan

Where are they operating?

Mr. Derrig

One operates in the South and the other in the East.

Mr. Finan

There are none operating in the West anyway. It is absolutely essential that there should be a watersupply convenient to the land. In parts of my county practically the whole summer is wasted with people having to bring water to their cattle. Much store has been set by the Minister and by other Ministers, too, on the rapidity with which vesting is proceeding. From the ordinary landholder's point of view that is not of vital importance to them at all. It is not a thing to which they pay particular attention. What is important is that once a tenant becomes vested the Land Commission finishes all responsibility for him. Matters which should have been attended to by the Land Commission and which are not attended to before investment cannot be attended to at all.

I understand that the staff is being augmented to deal with vesting. If they concentrated their efforts on the more speedy acquisition and allocation of land when required it would be of far greater service to the community. I appreciate, of course, the importance of making a tenant the vested tenant but for ordinary everyday purposes it is not an important matter. What is important is to place the people on the land. I would ask the Minister to have the Land Commission examine and deal with what must be almost endless numbers of holdings which are being worked by nobody except the local neighbour who might happen to have them on the 11-month system.

I do not know whether members of the House realise exactly what I am talking about. Let me make myself very clear. Where a man for economic reasons finds that he cannot make a living on his land and emigrates to England or even to America for two, three, four or five years to accumulate a bit of capital in order to work his holding more efficiently I do not suggest that the Land Commission should come along and acquire his land. I would be opposed to any such suggestion. I am talking about the holders of land where the owners have been forgotten. There are many such where nobody can precisely say who was the last real owner of that land. Such holdings should be dealt with as readily as possible. I know what the view of the Land Commission may be. Theymay say: "It is so small that it would not make any difference." I grant you that the individual holdings are small, but small as they are they could be turned to use and the cumulative size of them is by no means small. It would reach a very big total in acreage. I would ask the Minister, therefore, to get his Department to look into that question.

I would also ask him to insist upon the Land Commission abandoning the idea of holding land over a considerable period. Once they have acquired the land and are in complete possession of it they should immediately set about dividing it. If a system could be devised whereby intending vendors of holdings of land would indicate in advance their intention, I think that the task of the Land Commission which, I admit, is very difficult and oftentimes impossible, might be lighter.

Mr. Cogan

Deputy Finan has hardly given a real justification for referring this Estimate back. He was critical of the Land Commission. Every normal person is critical of the Land Commission no matter what Government is in power. Deputy Finan talked a lot of sense, but he also indulged in a lot of vague generalities which appeared to me to be out of touch with reality. For example, he said that every farmer's son who wishes to be a farmer and who wants land should walk into the local office of the Land Commission.

Mr. Finan

I did not say every farmer's son.

Mr. Cogan

That was the implication, that every farmer's son should do so. I suppose if one son on a farm went looking for land all the sons would do likewise. In the same way, I do not think you could rule out an agricultural worker's son, and so you would have a very large number of people applying to the Land Commission for land.

The question is how to satisfy the demand and provide the necessary quantity of land. The Land Commission do not make land, unfortunately.Perhaps in some cases they tend to unmake it, but certainly they do not create land, and they have no source from which to obtain land except by acquiring it from individual owners throughout the length and breadth of the country. There is not one patch of land, one acre of land, in the country that does not legally belong to somebody and the Land Commission have to find that somebody and acquire the land from them. The matter is not as simple as Deputy Finan has suggested. He made the matter even more complicated by suggesting that, while everybody who is entitled to land and in need of land should get it, he is not concerned so much about the size of the holding. Surely, if you have a limited amount of land and an almost unlimited number of applicants, you must be concerned, to a certain extent, about the size of the holding, because the policy that would suggest itself to the Land Commission is that if they want to supply the greatest number out of a limited area of land they must find the minimum and not the maximum amount of land that a family can live on.

Therefore, I think the problem is not one of suggesting how much land a person may be able to work, but rather what is the least amount that it is worth while to give to a family to set it up. That is the question that has to be resolved. I believe that the Land Commission should go cautiously in this matter. It would be a dangerous thing if they were greatly to enlarge the minimum in order to satisfy certain demands, and then find that they were only able to supply a lesser number of people. I think that the minimum size of a holding is that which a family can make a living out of by working it as efficiently as possible. It does not really matter where the farm is situated. If a family is going to live on a comparatively small holding, it must work the land intensively. Intensive work means extensive tillage and the raising and feeding of the maximum number of live stock on the farm.

I have not any serious criticism to make of the Land Commission inregard to the size of the holdings which they are allocating. I have a good deal of praise for the Land Commission in regard to the kind of homesteads which they are creating. They are building good houses and providing reasonably good out-offices. People, of course, will always complain that things are not perfect, but if a man were to attempt to build the same house himself and provide out-offices he, I think, would not be so hard to please if he had got to do it himself. So far as that is concerned, I think rather decent homesteads are being provided by the Land Commission.

The size of the holdings is a matter about which there could be a lot of discussion. I think that what we have to aim at, as the guiding factor, is the minimum number of acres that a family can live on and make a lecent living out of by working that land intensively. I would say that, if land is reasonably good, 25 or 30 acres would provide a decent living for a family, provided the members of it are industrious.

I think that the real criticism of the Land Commission is not the quality of the work they are doing but, perhaps, the quantity. The Land Commission, as we know, is both a judicial and an administrative body, and I suppose it is difficult to disentangle its administrative from its judicial functions. A body that tries to be judicial is not always the best from the administrative point of view. For example, if the members of the Supreme Court were to take over the management of an extensive business in this city I do not know that they would be able to run it very efficiently. Therefore, if a body like the Land Commission tries to perform judicial functions and at the same time tries to do administrative work, it is, at least, likely to go slow. I think what is really needed in the Land Commission is more drive, more speed and more energy. You want somebody, for example, of the type of the managing director of the Irish Sugar Company, someone with vigour, vision and determination, somebody who is determined to see that every bit of waste and derelict land in the country is acquiredand utilised to create a number of decent holdings out of which deserving people may be enabled to make a living.

There should not, I think, be any question in regard to the area of land to be acquired. No holding that is derelict or waste should be passed over because it is small. Neither should it be passed over because it appears to be too large to handle. Any land that is neglected, or is waste, or that has been sub-let for a number of years, and that, perhaps, has been inefficiently managed, is a dead loss to the nation. I know of one farm in the Minister's constituency which has been sub-let for 50 years. People in the parish do not know for certain the particular family that owns it. It is a comparatively small farm, but the fact is that it would either provide a decent holding for one migrant or one family or a couple of parcels of land for adjoining small uneconomic holders. So far nothing has been done about it. I suppose the Land Commission are investigating quite a number of similar holdings, but their investigations take a long time. I think they ought to realise that while, I suppose, time is unlimited, it is always a little later than we think. The nation's population is dwindling and dwindling rapidly as far as the rural areas are concerned.

The creation of decent homesteads on land which is, to a great extent, waste is the most urgent problem of the present time. The Land Commission set out as their policy the acquisition and division of land amongst uneconomic holders, but they seem to specify that the personality or the individuality or the quality of the applicants is not a matter of great importance. It is thought that the real matter of importance is whether the applicant's holding is uneconomic or not. I do not think that is entirely desirable. The attitude of the applicant for the land, his efficiency in the management of the land he possesses and his general qualifications to make a good farmer are matters that ought to be taken into consideration.

I suggested last year and I wouldlike to repeat the suggestion, that there ought to be a certain pool of land provided by the Land Commission as a reward for young men who prove their efficiency in farming operations, young men who take advantage of modern technical training and education in agriculture and who by their qualifications make themselves desirable holders of land. If a number of those young men with such high qualifications were given holdings by the Land Commission, not perhaps as complete owners but if holdings were leased to them so that they could prove that they were good farmers, I think that would be a step in the right direction. These established holdings would become in their areas model farms and the young men would be setting a headline for other farmers in the district.

The Land Commission sets out to divide very large holdings into economic holdings with houses erected on them. That policy provides parcels of land in the neighbourhood for people who have uneconomic holdings. However, while the Land Commission are creating more and more economic holdings, at the other end of the scale economic holdings are disappearing always. One farmer will acquire one, two or three holdings to add on to his own and the result is that the work of the Land Commission in creating new holdings is being undone. It happens in many parts of the country, including places where the land is not of the highest quality. One individual will acquire an additional holding, then another and another until he has accumulated a very large amount of land. That, I suppose, is inevitable as long as we have complete freedom of ownership and freedom of sale, but the effect of it is that homesteads disappear. I have seen houses built by the Land Commission 30 years ago steadily falling into ruin by reason of the fact that the holdings, having become vested, were purchased by a person living outside the country. In the same way I have seen homesteads and dwelling-houses that have been reconstructed since reconstruction grants became available, becoming unoccupied and falling into ruin.

That is not a state of affairs that should be allowed to continue. The Land Commission should take action in that regard. As far as land that is acquired and distributed by the Land Commission and not yet vested is concerned, the Land Commission have very definite functions. They can prevent the house from being unoccupied and they can prevent the land from being sub-let. Where land is vested in the tenant-owner, the Land Commission has no function at all. Sooner or later this nation will have to consider the Land Commission as having some function in that respect.

In a general way, of course, they have a function there because they can acquire any land which is being continuously sub-let. They should also have regard to the whole position of purchase and sale. They do operate to prevent the sub-division of small holdings but they have never taken any action in regard to the merger of a number of economic holdings or large holdings into one very large one. Sooner or later they will have to consider that aspect of the matter. It is a depressing thing to travel through the country and see what are known as non-residential holdings and holdings upon which the homesteads are being allowed to fall into ruin. You will find the walls around the houses and quite a number of the old boreens leading to the houses completely overgrown with weeds. It is one of the most depressing sights in the country. I do not think it exists in Denmark or in many of the continental countries. It is really a matter of going all-out to deal with the problem, and it must be tackled soon.

We hear people saying that the work of the Land Commission is drawing to a close, that all the land available has been sub-let or sub-divided and allocated. I do not think that is entirely true. There will always be arising problems for the Land Commission to deal with in regard to tenure, the size of holdings and the allocation of holdings. We accept the general principle of security of tenure for the farmer. That security of tenure is, of course, subject to the proviso that the land must not beabused. There is the question of user that arises and the principle is accepted by people on all sides of the House. Nobody will object to a farmer in temporary difficulty sub-letting his land for a short time. Nobody objects to a widow, who has a farm on her hands, and whose family is not grown up to work it, sub-letting that land. However, when you have cases of holdings being continually sub-let for many years over a very long period and, in some cases, with no owners living in the district at all, I think it is the duty of the Land Commission to take steps to ensure that the maximum amount of use will be made of the land, the maximum output secured from it and the maximum amount of employment given on those holdings. That is almost a permanent function of the Land Commission. It is a problem that will be always there to be dealt with and most people would like to see the Land Commission dealing with it quickly, energetically and efficiently. There are bottlenecks or administrative delays. They ought to be removed.

I do not know whether I should suggest it on this Estimate or not, but there is need for some progressive body which would acquire the poorer land that is to a considerable extent waste, requiring extensive reclamation. There should be some body to acquire such land, to determine the acreage that can be reclaimed for agricultural purposes and perhaps lease it to the energetic young men, the farmers of the future and turn the remainder over to the Forestry Division. That work requires to be done. Everywhere, particularly in Wicklow, the Forestry Division acquire holdings on which, in many cases, there are residences, holdings which have been worked as agricultural land for years. They plant, not only the hill portion, but a considerable amount of the agricultural land. Some section of the Minister's Department or some body must fight the Forestry Division in regard to the user of land. Inevitably, anybody in charge of the Forestry Division would like to plant as much of the land as possible, would like to plant the better type of land because there would be a better return from itand it probably could be done at less expense than the planting of mountain land. It is not in the national interest. Timber is very valuable but not as valuable as ordinary agricultural crops, and it is not socially desirable that an acre of land which can be used to grow such crops should be turned over to timber. The Minister must realise that he, or somebody else, must keep a close eye on this particular aspect of the matter. Inevitably, having acquired a holding, the Forestry Division will tend to plant as much of it as they will be allowed. By planting as much as possible of the better type of land they will have more to show at the end of the year. They will have a bigger acreage under timber, and very probably the timber will do better on good land. That is not the supreme consideration. The supreme consideration is that land is used to the very best advantage and land that is suitable for agricultural purposes should not be allowed to be taken over by the Forestry Division.

I raise this matter on this particular Vote because either the Minister or somebody in the Land Commission must take it upon himself to watch this aspect of the matter and to see that land suitable for farming is not devoted to afforestation.

Taking everything into consideration the Land Commission are doing a reasonably good job but I feel that they are not doing enough.

Mr. Burke

I want, again, to raise my hardy annual, the problem with which I am faced in County Dublin, namely, Land Commission roads. The Land Commission have a method of road making when they divide a holding. The county council will not take it over. After two years, the Land Commission give a further grant, the land is vested and the tenants are left to do as best they can. Could some co-ordinating machinery be devised whereby roads would be put into proper repair, say, handed over to the local authority to be kept in repair? In County Dublin a number of farmers are trying to get heavy machinery along a number of roads that are notsuitable. I have mentioned the matter frequently and have received very sympathetic consideration from the present Minister but he has no machinery at his disposal. I raise this matter to ask if some co-ordinating machinery could be set up to deal with this very urgent matter.

Only this morning I received another letter from a number of people who are living in an estate not very far from Dublin, the Nevinstown, Cloghran area. There is a very bad road into that land. It is one of the many roads to which I have already referred. I could refer to many of them again but do not wish to go into them in detail.

The solution to this problem is long overdue. Although the rural improvements scheme is in operation it is very difficult sometimes to get people to carry out this work. Five tenants may agree and the sixth may not agree to contribute to the repair of the road. I would be grateful if the Minister or his Department could find some way of dealing with the improvement of Land Commission roads.

There is a problem in County Dublin which is not so acute in any other constituency. It arises from the fact that there is a large number of conacre farmers in County Dublin. The Minister and his Department are definitely doing a very good job in relieving uneconomic holdings. In County Dublin there are men who have no land but who, from nine to 15 years, possibly, have been taking land on the conacre system. They are not in a position to buy land and are just carrying on from month to month and year to year, buying machinery, tilling the land and paying heavy conacre rent. When the Land Commission have acquired all the land that will be divided in the county a number of these people will be pushed out completely and their livelihoods will be gone.

There is a problem in getting the Land Commission to consider conacre farmers. In making that suggestion I am travelling on rather dangerous ground. I know that there is not very much land to be divided. The Minister's first duty is to relieve, as far as possible, the uneconomic holders.Nevertheless, there is a problem in my constituency that very few Deputies have in their constituencies. It arises from the number of reasonably successful farmers of the conacre type who are getting land from the owners of large estates. Directly the Land Commission buy the holdings these men will find themselves without any land or any hope of buying land.

I move to report progress.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.