Before the House adjourned last week, I had occasion to express pleasure at the way the Estimate was received in general. I should like to say again that most of the criticism was of a useful and constructive kind. I shall deal, first of all, with some of the points made by Deputy Blowick. He referred to the fact that the number of migrants moved from West to East and of those others moved within their own counties appear to have shown some decline. Part of the reason for this was a cut in the Improvements Vote in the Estimates for 1957-58 and there was another reason in a particular district. However, the prospects seem to be good. We anticipate, if we have the means, that we can arrange for 100 migrations in the current year, which would bring the average for the past four years to cover that figure.
We hope to effect 520 rearrangements. The number carried out last year is a very good average on about eight years' operations. Therefore, we have operated fairly satisfactorily in that respect. I should make it clear that the hard core of rearrangements is coming upon us. Naturally, the inspectors choose those areas where the most work can be done with the minimum of effort. However, there are estates where conditions are more difficult, where agreement is more difficult to secure. There are a number of areas where agreement has been held up through the action of one or two people. Like all Ministers for Lands, I would make an appeal to some people, who feel reluctant, to think over again their position and the offer that has been made to them in the hope that we can deal with some of these difficult cases.
Deputy Blowick suggested that the problem of congestion and fragmentation in the West should be tackled by an all-out effort in the next four or five years. He also suggested that we should purchase about 1,000 holdings for cash each year. As the Deputy knows, under the Land Act which he passed, a direct cash purchase can be used only for migration or rearrangement. That limits the application of the cash principle.
Secondly, we have to be very careful in using cash for purchasing purposes. If we started to buy land in large quantities it might have the effect of inflating the price in the case of private sales. I think every Deputy will agree that the use of large quantities of ready cash for a specific end in a limited period might have that effect. As a result, the Land Commission might be severely criticised for interfering in the selling of land privately. It could be undertaken only after very serious consideration. I do not feel justified in upsetting the ordinary land market, much as I should like to finish off the 9,000 worst cases of unvested intermixed estates.
Next, I should like to answer Deputy Dillon who, in speaking of the decision of the Land Commission to permit the letting of land for periods, issued a caveat against the dangers of reviving landlordism. I do not think I need say very much except that we have no intention of reviving landlordism. I made it clear in my opening speech that the Land Commission will prevent the acquisition of large amounts of land, particularly by persons speculating in land. Permission to let will be given in such a way that there will be no possibility of recreating landlordism.
The fact which we have to face and which has been adverted to by Ministers for Lands in other Governments —it is no new discovery—is that, out of 12,000,000 acres of arable land, 750,000 acres are taken in conacre or on the 11 months' grazing system. I do not think any Deputy proposes that the Land Commission should after its general rules in regard to land which it acquires compulsorily.
We have a tradition of free sale and free use of land. Some people might say that the Land Commission standards of adequate production and employment are very modest while others might say they are quite adequate. I do not believe there is any demand anywhere for a radical change in the general rules under which land is acquired. That means that a huge part of this 750,000 acres is let for convenience by persons, with the understanding of the Land Commission that there is a reason for it, and the land is not acquired compulsorily. I am not saying all of the land is of that character.
The Land Commission, with its limited funds, may, in certain areas, be unable to acquire lands which it otherwise would acquire. I asked the Land Commission to tell me what the result would be if they had more money and if the Improvements Vote were increased—whether they could acquire more land. The inspectors reported that they might, for a few years, be able to acquire about 25 per cent. more land under the prevailing regulations. That is all it would amount to.
I was informed that the pool of badly-worked land is diminishing and for that we can be thankful. Well-worked land gives employment. According to statistics, one man is employed in this country for every 100 acres and nearly three men on estates of over 200 acres. There has been a tremendous emigration even of permanently employed agricultural workers. We have to think of that side of the picture as well as of the relief of congestion. That has been the view of successive Ministers for Lands over the past ten years.
There exists this very large acreage of let land. A typical instance would be a widow with a very young son who decides to let the land sometimes for ten, 15 or 20 years. We see the possibility of giving some chance to landless men who are ambitious to earn money to buy a farm, and who need to climb the farming ladder—an expression frequently used by farm organisations and by the late Senator Moylan. All we are doing is to enable that widow, for example, to let her land for five years, knowing that the fertility will be maintained, that a young man will have the chance of doing good work on the land and saving some money which he may use to purchase a farm. Whatever he does, he will improve his position.
This huge amount of land is let in a way that, so far as I know, is almost unique in Northern Europe. Deputy Dillon can be assured that I, as Minister for Lands, will be advised by men who have years and years of experience on land acquisition and division and that, between the Land Commissioners and myself, and such other advice as I can get, this new experiment will be conducted without harmful results. I can assure the Deputy that anything in the nature of recreating landlordism on a large scale will not take place as a result of this decision.
