Deputy Finan in his opening statement referred to the Land Commission holding Congested District Board's estates for a long time. He did not give the name of the estate. As I have just said in reply to Deputy McMenamin, there may be remnants of estates, mountain or bog, comparatively, if not absolutely, worthless land, in the hands of the Land Commission. According to our statistics, we have many thousands of acres of such land. The point is that, whatever the complaint against the old Congested Districts Board may have been for holding land for a period of time, they had the excuse or justification that in fact the same people were taking the land for conacre as would eventually be allotted the land. In the case of these Congested Districts Board's estates it is, almost universally, the same people who are using the land for temporary purposes who will benefit by it in the long run. They know that. That has been the position. In regard to the derelict holdings that have been referred to in the debate, and acquisition of which would be necessary and very desirable for what we call rearrangement or improvement or enlargement of small holdings in these congested districts, it may happen in some isolated cases that have not been brought to my notice that in fact lands have been in the possession of the Land Commission for some years. I doubt very much if it runs to any considerable period of time.
Normally the hold-up is in connection with building. When the Land Commission take over land their inspectors have in mind that houses have to be built or reconstructed and in the case of new houses particularly, which have to be set to contract, if they do not succeed in completing their arrangements before the spring period it means that the taking up of the holding by the allottee has to be postponed until the following November. For example, if the contractor has met with exceptional difficulties, or if there is a question about water or some suchthing, it may happen that, instead of the normal year which ought to be more than sufficient and which ought to be a maximum period between the time the Land Commission take possession and the time of allotment, the period may be somewhat increased and it may go over the year in very exceptional cases.
The difficulty in the present year has been in satisfying the potential migrants. In some cases after they had seen the land, in other cases after they had actually expressed their willingness to accept the holdings offered to them in other counties, they withdrew. The two reasons generally given were that the holdings offered were not large enough or domestic reasons, that the older members of the family or perhaps the wife of the congest refused to come. Were it not for that, we would have been able to complete the allotment of the 143 or 144 holdings which were given out during the present year. Next year we expect to have about 150 migrants leaving the congested areas for the Midlands.
I notice that the migrants from Kerry are amongst the most difficult to satisfy. That applies not only now. When I was in this Department ten years ago Kerry people who had been offered exchanges refused at the end of it all to come. Considering that the problem of rearrangement and the number of unvested holdings is not nearly as serious in Kerry as in Mayo and Galway, I cannot agree with the implication in Deputy Flynn's statement that we are not giving Kerry fair play. We are giving Kerry more than fair play, in my opinion. We have just got additional sanction for a large turbary scheme. It will cost us another £17,000. The total expenditure on that single scheme on the Kenmare Estate will be about £65,000 over recent years.
As the Deputy is aware, we have in contemplation an expenditure of at least £15,000—and it will probably cost more—for the embankments at Callinafercy. The Land Commission do not agree that in fact they have any responsibility for some of these embankments, whether at Callinafercy or elsewhere, but due to the fact that theBoard of Works have not set up their arterial drainage organisation, the presumption and the intention being that when that national drainage organisation was set up the care and responsibility for the repair of these embankments should pass to it, we have been asked by the Government in certain cases to undertake this work. It is work that is superimposed upon the Land Commission over and above their ordinary work, which can be described briefly as the completion of the vesting of their holdings in the tenants and, secondly, during whatever period of time it is necessary to give the Land Commission, to endeavour to complete the work, to try to see that the largest possible amount is done to alleviate the bad position of the rural slums, the really badly affected congested areas where this rundale system of intermixed plots still obtains on many thousands of holdings in the West of Ireland.
We would like that as much as possible should be done to relieve that situation. It is in Mayo and Galway that it is particularly serious. It is also serious in parts of Donegal. The Donegal people, perhaps, have turned their backs on the idea of agriculture and regard their little holdings in Donegal as merely resting places where they settle down for certain periods of the year and go off for industrial or other employment during the rest of the year. They have shown a marked reluctance and, in fact, have refused to come to the Midlands and even to migrate from West Donegal into East Donegal. They are most unlike the Kerry people, who apparently are so fond of their beautiful county that no attraction we can offer to them seems to be sufficient to make them come up here. We know that the Kerry people themselves are very persuasive and perhaps the Land Commission inspectors though some of them hail from that part of the country are wanting in the eloquence that Kerry people rejoice in. One large migrant from West Kerry refused at the last minute to carry out his transfer of his holding in County Dublin owing to the opposition of his wife and family. I havean idea that he was rather keen on coming.
Another one under an approved group migration scheme, from another part of Kerry previewed and refused a holding in County Kildare, but he is still anxious for an exchange although he refused a holding of 34½ statute acres. Another one previewed and refused another holding of 33 statute acres because it was not large enough for him but he still wants to exchange. Another one from Bantry saw two holdings of 33 and 34 acres and refused them, but in this case, at any rate, he did not seem to be keen on coming in any event. Another one from Clare who was very anxious to come was held back by his aged father. Another one from West Cork refused a 33-acre holding in County Kildare on the grounds of insufficient size. He would like a larger area not necessarily of such good quality. Three group migrants from another part of Kerry refused even to come to see holdings offered to them in County Kildare. Two of them had seen holdings already in 1952 and were understood to be keen to migrate. It is thought that their refusal to migrate is due to some family difficulty. Another large group migrant from Kerry refused to look at a large holding offered him in County Kildare as he no longer wished to migrate.
All this means that not alone is a considerable amount of the inspectors' time lost and considerable cost accruing to the Land Commission by reason of these people's failure to make up their minds definitely whether they want to come or not, but when they delay their final decision even when they have given consent to the Land Commission inspector that they intend to come, it means that he is placed in a very difficult position. As I have just indicated, towards the end of the season he has to turn around and look for another migrant to take the holding instead. If the migrant is a man who is giving up a comparatively large holding and getting a comparatively large holding it is difficult because the Land Commission tries to give fair compensation by way of return. My own opinion is that the compensationis generally generous and that the man who has the courage and initiative to come is not going to lose. Unfortunately, some of them do not seem to have these qualities. They do not seem to see the enormous advantage of being within 20 or 30 miles perhaps of the City of Dublin with all the market facilities and all the rest of it that that may mean to them. It may be that their overheads go up very considerably. I have no doubt whatever but that they do. The overheads may be twice, three times or even more than three times as high as they were, but there are advantages in getting a holding of 33 acres of first-class land and getting the other concessions and other facilities including a first-class dwellinghouse and outoffices, roads constructed and so on, and all that, in the most fertile part of the country and within striking distance of the largest and most profitable market, certainly ought to appeal to the Kerry migrant.
As far as I know there is no distinction between vested and unvested tenants. If the Land Commission inspectors in the particular schemes that they have in mind have told Deputies that unvested tenants must secure preference and priority, that is on account of the nature of the scheme. In my opening statement I pointed out that the utilisation of the migrants' surrendered land for the enlargement and rearrangement of adjacent small holdings which, in turn, generally required improvement of buildings etc., cannot be speedily completed. I said that land acquisition as to proceed under statutory provisions with due allowance for objections and appeals. I went on:—
"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."
And then I went on to say:—
"Inevitably, in the lay-out of any congested townland there are ‘key' holdings, the acquisition of which by the Land Commission would greatlyfacilitate the 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."
With regard to the expenditure, I think Kerry is doing fairly well. It would be an extraordinary thing if it were not, it is so well looked after in this House and in the offices of the Land Commission. During the past year, we spent £40,000 and more on improvement expenditure. In the preceding year, we spent £23,000. In the year before that, less than £18,000. The total expenditure for the whole country was £560,000.
Deputy McMenamin seemed to object to the size of the holdings. Like some of the migrants he referred to the little patches of 22 acres. Unfortunately, as I have said, we have not been able to get the Donegal people to come to the Midlands or we have not succeeded in persuading them even to go from West to East Donegal. I am not sure that it is not for want of appreciation of what they were getting.The position is that in the West of Ireland it was always recognised that the standard holding would be about £10 valuation, and if the Congested Districts Board or the Land Commission succeeding them were able at any time to bring the tenants up to the £10 valuation generally on an average they would consider that they had accomplished something practically miraculous.
If you look at the figures for these western counties, you will see that is the position. Not alone there but in the Midlands, even in Deputy MacEoin's constituency, where land has been given out by way of enlargement to smallholders, my recollection is that in a portion of County Longford they are still around about the £10 valuation and a very large number, the clear majority of the holdings in this country are in that category. People on these holdings have succeeded in bringing up families, in rearing them and giving them a reasonable education and, what is to their credit, they have very often succeeded in giving them higher education and fitting them for a professional career. In the Civil Service and the teaching profession, not to speak of the Church, we have any number of examples of the large numbers that come from that particular class of small farmers.
The point then is, if we know that £10 is more than we can achieve on the average and that the smallholder of £10 is regarded as comparatively well off in large areas west of the Shannon, are we justified in raising the size of the migrant's holding? If people are being migrated from these areas to the East, up to 40 acres, let us say, are we justified when we know that only a limited number of some hundreds at the most can be brought in a particular year? If we bring 150, as we did last year and as we expect to do during the coming year, we shall be doing very well indeed, in my opinion. Are we justified then in giving these 150 exceptionally special treatment over and above what they are getting already? We know that, as far as Mayo and I should think Galway also, are concerned there are probably more than enough anxious to come and exchange their holdings. The onlypoint holding them up is that we must be satisfied that our inspectors believe that the removal of these particular individuals will help, that their cases are, in fact, the cases in which the greatest relief can be given to their neighbours. If the particular persons who have made applications for exchanges can satisfy the inspectors on that score, they can be included in the quota of 150. I cannot see why we should go further than give 33 acres of the best land in this country, with the dwellinghouse and outoffices and all the rest of it, when we know that we can do that only in a limited number of cases.
This is to an extent a social service. I dare say that if we gave some of the migrants far more than the 33 acres we would still have complaints that they were not getting enough. I would like to point out to Deputies who are not familiar with the position that they will find in the last Annual Report of the Land Commission a report by our inspector, Mr. Gleeson, which has been incorporated in the report dealing with the success which has met these migrants in Meath. It is quite clear that their stock and their wealth have increased enormously and that they have been able to take more land. I know that some of them who have come from the very poorest fishing villages in this country have not alone been able to establish themselves soundly and firmly, but they have been able to go out and buy holdings for members of their families. Therefore, it is absolutely ridiculous, and it shows either complete ignorance of the situation or sheer pretence, to say that we are not doing well for these people. They are the choice persons, they are the ones who have been selected and for whom all this has been done.
As I said in reply to Deputy McMenamin, we are losing large sums of money. In the first place, when the Land Commissioners fix the annuity they fix it having regard to what they think the land can pay; and under the 1953 Act they are compelled in law to revise that annuity. Therefore, on the annuity that would be considered fair and reasonable and proper in normal circumstances, remember that we are getting only half the amount.In the Estimate this year, Deputies will see that "Payments under Section 27 (2) of the Land Act, 1933, sub-head H 3" in the present year amount to £667,400. The expenditure on the improvement of estates during the current year is £615,000. A very large proportion of that goes in the preparation of these holdings. About £1,500 is spent on improvement works on each of these holdings.
Leaving aside the question of the halved annuity, the Land Commissioners do not attempt to recover the full cost. I have a return here of lands acquired over recent years. The acquisition price for an amount of land acquired, a recent figure, might be £95,000 total, but the resale price would be only £73,000, leaving a loss of 22½ per cent. A more recent figure, for a smaller area, shows the acquisition price almost £14,000 and the resale price only £7,000, so we recovered only half the cost; we lost nearly 49 per cent. You may say we recovered only half the cost of the land. You have to add on to that the cost of the buildings and improvements of various kinds.
My attitude to this matter is that I want, in the first place, to see that we get value for this money. I realise that land settlement is a very costly business and that if we are going to settle people upon the land we must be satisfied not alone that they will give a return and will work the land properly and be an example to their neighbours, but also that in transferring them from their own areas to take up new holdings we are giving the maximum amount of benefit. We have to combine the two things, giving the maximum benefit in the areas from which they are being taken and trying to see that the persons we have brought will give the best possible return to the community and to the country.
The reasons why these losses on resale have increased in recent years are, roughly, two. Under the Land Act, 1950, market value is now paid for land instead, as previously, a price fair to the Land Commission and fair to the owner. As a result, purchase prices have increased to a greater extent than the resale values, which are fixed withdue regard to the full term of the repayment period annuity and the possibility of bad as well as good years for the farming community. Secondly, the relief of congestion tends to depend more and more on migration and tenants can be migrated to holdings of good quality only. This entails the acquisition of a bigger proportion of land of high market value, the resale of which on a percentage basis alone involves increased losses.
Deputy Burke and, I am sure, other Deputies, are interested in this problem of conacre tenants looking for land. I have a great deal of sympathy with these conacre tenants. As far as the policy of land resettlement is concerned, there has been no change. Fundamentally, it has been the same for many years past. There may have been some variations, such as those in regard to price, but fundamentally the policy is the same and, in so far as the categories of persons and the order of priority in respect of each are concerned, they are just the same now as they have been for years past.
Section 31 of the Land Act, 1923, sets out categorically the persons or bodies to whom the Land Commission may allot land:
"(1) Advances may be made to the following persons or bodies for the purchase by them from the Land Commission of parcels of land:
(a) A person being the tenant or proprietor of a holding which, in the opinion of the Land Commission, is not an economic holding.
(b) A person who has entered into an agreement with the Land Commission for the exchange of his holding.
(c) A person who within 25 years before the passing of the Irish Land Act, 1903, was the tenant of a holding to which the Land Purchase Act applied, and who was evicted from that holding in consequence of proceedings taken by or on behalf of his landlord, or in case such person is dead, the person nominated by the Land Commission as his personal representative.
(d) 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."
And finally:—
"Any other person or body to whom in the opinion of the Land Commission an advance ought to be made."
Section 2 reads:—
"The Land Commission in deciding as to the suitability of applicants under this section shall be satisfied as to their competence to work the land, and their intention to do so and not sell, let, or assign it ..."
That is the position.
