I move:
That a sum not exceeding £1,287,740 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, 1961, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Offices of the Minister for Lands and of the Irish Land Commission.
At the outset, I should mention that the format of this Estimate has been generally revised since last year, with the approval of the Committee of Public Accounts. It has been found possible to reduce the number of former subheads by half. A key to the corresponding subheads is on page 170 in the current Estimates Volume. It is in the form of straightforward cross-references which seem to be self-explanatory. To facilitate comparisons within the current Estimate, the details for last year have been brought into line throughout with the new format. I feel that Deputies will find this new format of the Lands Estimate generally satisfactory.
As is customary, I propose to begin with an explanation of the important subheads. I shall continue with a review in some detail of the activities of the Land Commission during the past financial year and I also intend to comment on some matters of general interest, which are appropriate to this important Vote.
When last year's Supplementary Estimate of £32,000 has been taken into account, the net total of £2,231,940 for the current year shows an increase of £110,860 on the corresponding amount, namely, £2,121,080, voted last year, including the Supplementary Estimate. This overall increase this year is attributable mainly to the substantial increases in four subheads—A, D, G and I, to each of which I shall now refer.
Subhead A, in respect of Salaries, Wages and Allowances, shows an increase of £34,059 over last year's provision. This increase is almost entirely attributable to the general Civil Service salary award, effective from last December. The reduction of 32 shown in authorised personnel is accounted for by the continuing progress towards completion of resale of tenanted land.
Subhead D in the main represents the taxpayers' contribution in the current year towards the service of land purchase debt, accumulated on both tenanted and untenanted land, since 1923. This year, that contribution totals £889,300—almost two-thirds of which relates to tenanted lands which were purchased from landlords between the years 1923 and 1931. The moneys in the subhead are in the nature of statutory commitments. They account for almost 40 per cent. of the whole Estimate. The increase of £10,950 this year is almost entirely due to the halving of purchase instalments payable by new allottees.
Item 1 of Subhead G, carries a substantial increase of £35,000 for cash purchases under Section 27 of the Land Act, 1950. This increase brings the provision up to £60,000 which is by far the largest sum to date provided for this purpose. I am confident that the entire £60,000 will be spent this year. Last year, approximately £40,000 was spent in purchasing 1,032 acres, mostly in the congested districts counties. It is scarcely necessary to remind Deputies that, by the Land Act, 1950, these particular funds are confined to the purchase of lands required for migrants' holdings or to facilitate the re-arrangement of fragmented holdings.
The second and smaller item in subhead G provides a repeat of last year's figure of £5,000 in respect of compensation payable in cash for holdings that may be resumed on the diminishing residue of C.D.B. estates. Thus, the two items in Subhead G cover the limited but important sector of cash purchases. The bulk of land settlement continues to be financed in land bonds issued under Land Bond Orders made by the Minister for Finance. The land bond interest rate of 5½ per cent. and the annuity rate of 5¾ per cent. remain unchanged from last year. At these rates, the relevant purchase annuities are amortised in 58 years. To correct mistaken notions, heard from time to time, I want to emphasise that the repayment period was not increased by the halving of annuities under the Land Act, 1933.
Subhead H provides £3,500 for the payment of gratuities to persons displaced from employment on lands being taken over by the Land Commission for division. Last year, twenty-four ex-employees received gratuities aggregating £3,074 and averaging £128 each. Since the system of cash gratuities was introduced in 1950, a total of £22,508 has been paid by way of gratuities to 204 persons— an average of £110 each.
I should point out that not all ex-employees are compensated in cash; last year, twenty-six ex-employees who were considered suitable to take on the responsibilities of farming, were given allotments totalling 806 acres. In all cases, the award of compensation— whether in terms of land or money— is an excepted matter within the jurisdiction of the Land Commissioners.
Subhead I provides £670,510 for the improvements works programme, being equivalent to 30% of the entire Estimate. This has always been a popular debating sector of the Land Estimate and the retention of the traditional subhead letter "I" will help to preserve continuity. There are a few significant differences of detail in the present Subhead I compared with previous years.
First, there are the items of £20,000 salaries and £10,000 travelling expenses of the 38 supervisors referred to in footnote (d) on page 175 of the current Estimates Volume. The former grade of "supervising ganger", which is now known as "supervisor", has been integrated into the regular Civil Service organisation and provision for superannuation has been made for this staff as far as practicable. That is a change I am particularly glad to announce; the need for awarding established status to some of these men found many mouthpieces in this House and I know that Deputies generally will welcome it. The pay and travelling expenses of this important field staff used formerly be borne on Subhead I as overheads going to make up the global estimates for building and general improvement works. In view of the altered status of the supervisors, it is considered more appropriate now to provide for their salaries and travelling expenses in the orthodox subheads for these items.
Another significant change in Subhead I concerns the minor provision which used to figure in previous years under the subtitle of "Purchase of Tenancy Interests". This year, it is classified as Subhead G2, to which I referred a few moments ago, in connection with the repeat of last year's provision of £5,000 for resumed holdings on C.D.B. estates. These subhead transfers represent a deduction of £35,000 from the old Subhead I.
In effect, Subhead I provides the entire funds for carrying out the various improvements works associated with and inseparable from the land settlement programme. These works include the erection of dwelling-houses and out-offices on new farmsteads and re-arranged holdings, the construction of roads, fences and drains on resettled lands, turbary development works and so on. Last year, when the original provision of £639,605 proved inadequate, a supplementary estimate of £50,000 was granted, making a total of £689,605 voted for the year. Of this sum, the amount actually expended was £683,778.
Deducting the sums applicable to supervisors and tenancy interests, which are no longer appropriate to Subhead I, we had an actual expenditure last year of just under £653,000 for comparison with the current Subhead I provision of over £670,000, representing a nett increase of approximately £17,000 in the current year.
It is anticipated that the increased funds will be wholly required to finance the improvement work engagements in the current year's programme. An Incentive Bonus Scheme similar to that in operation in the State Forests is now being extended to workers employed on Land Commission improvements works.
The remaining few substantial expenditure Subheads relate to travelling and incidental expenses, telegrams, telephones and postage and legal expenses—which are self-explanatory. Indeed, these subheads show little change from the previous year and the detailed breakdown is set out in Part III of the printed Estimate.
As regards appropriations-in-aid, Subhead L at £178,000 is some £4,500 higher than last year. This increase is almost entirely attributable to item (5) for "Excess Annuities, etc." This item is statutorily regulated by Land (Finance) Rules. The relevant receipts take the form of tenant purchasers' repayments on improvement loans, turbary rights and other resales not primarily financed in land bonds.
I now turn to a review of the main activities of the Land Commission during the year ended 31st March, 1960. Though some of the statistics are provisional, they are unlikely to vary to any appreciable extent from the final returns which will not be available for some little time yet.
On the tenanted land side, progress continued towards the completion of land purchase, i.e., the conversion of tenants into proprietors, through the process of revesting their holdings in them. Of a total of some 112,000 tenanted holdings which vested in the Land Commission under the Land Acts, 1923-54, for ultimate resale to tenants, approximately 103,000 had been dealt with by 31st March, 1960.
The number of such holdings revested during the year was 1,010. The essential work of selling their holdings to the sitting tenants has now virtually concluded in 15 counties, namely, Carlow, Cavan, Dublin, Kildare, Kilkenny, Laois, Leitrim, Limerick, Longford, Louth, Meath, Monaghan, Westmeath, Wexford and Wicklow, and the balance of cases under Land Acts, 1923-1924, has been reduced to 9,000 which represents only about 8% of the original total. In addition, approximately 3,000 holdings, on estates of the former Congested Districts Board, still await resale and the aggregate total of 12,000 holdings constitutes the hard core of tenanted land on actually congested estates.
It is estimated that 7,000 of these holdings, apart from being undersized, are in rundale or intermixed plots. The solution of these difficult cases is inevitably a tedious process. They represent what might be termed "a recalcitrant residue", disposal of which is affected to a large extent by negotiations for migration and re-arrangement and the acquisition or purchase of other lands. Even at the expanded rate of progress in the past two years, the re-arrangement of unvested fragmented holdings will probably take another ten years to complete. Much will necessarily depend upon the degree of co-operation among the occupiers themselves and the willingness of a sufficient number to migrate from rundale townlands to new holdings elsewhere.
On the land settlement side, during the year ended 31st March last, the total area acquired, resumed or otherwise taken over by the Land Commission was 28,000 acres, while the total area distributed, in some 2,250 allotments, was 39,000 acres, in addition to the provision of 868 rights of turbary. Bearing in mind that land settlement policy has aimed at a steady intake and allotment of 25,000 acres per annum, I think the results which I have just quoted for the year are certainly good.
At 31st March, 1960, the acreage of arable lands on hand, forming the programme stock-in-trade, amounted to approximately 37,500 acres and the lands in the acquisition machine totalled 27,500 acres.
The number of migrations carried out during the year was 118 and, in addition, 600 re-arrangements were effected. I should like to say a few words on these two inseparable features of land settlement in this country. I referred a few moments ago to the difficulty in disposing of the residual hard core of tenanted land. These holdings, as Deputies are no doubt aware, are situated for the most part on acutely-congested estates in counties along the western seaboard. A high proportion of them stands in dire need of re-arrangement as a prerequisite to revesting, while the bulk of them would also benefit from enlargement. In this connection, it is necessary to emphasise that, due to the scarcity of untenanted land in the immediate vicinity of the congested estates, migration is generally the main source of obtaining the land needed for re-arrangement and enlargement purposes.
Coming, as I do, from the west of Ireland, I am naturally very deeply interested in the Land Commission's migration and re-arrangement programme, and I think that the most heartening news for tenants on congested estates is the fact that about 600 holdings are now being re-arranged by the Irish Land Commission each year. The re-grouping into compact workable units of the series of scattered and intermixed plots which normally constitute their holdings is of very great benefit to these tenants of what are often called "rural slums". This is the vital work being done by the Land Commission in their voluntary re-arrangement schemes and I know that Deputies, including those who may be only remotely conversant with the conditions obtaining on some of these badly-congested estates, will fully endorse the worth and merit of this work.
Here, I believe it appropriate to say that the circumstances under which land may be acquired are laid down by statute; owners of land sought for compulsory acquisition have a legal right of objection by way of public hearing; they also have further legal rights of appeal. Frequently acquisition proceedings are vigorously contested. In contrast, the success of migration and re-arrangement schemes wholly depends on the voluntary co-operation of the participants. The human element plays a big part in this aspect of the work, demanding long and careful negotiations by the inspectorate to procure the goodwill of all the landholders.
In practice, the more acute the congestion and overcrowding, the more difficult it is to secure the agreement of suitable families to migrate and also to win general consent for a satisfactory re-arrangement scheme. Consent and co-operation are not easy to achieve when many landholders are involved, particularly if, in the general exchange and re-shuffle of disconnected plots, there is not sufficient land to inspire and induce them to resettle. The entire business of migration and re-arrangement is a slow and exacting process involving patient negotiation and bargaining but it is an inescapable item in our land settlement.
I cannot pass from this subject without emphasising the vital need for tenants concerned in the formulation of re-arrangement proposals to cooperate fully with the Land Commission inspectors with a view to bringing re-arrangement schemes, which, in any event, are solely for the tenants' benefit, to a successful conclusion. Though the need for this co-operation has been stressed many times already, I am now compelled to refer to the matter once more and I earnestly appeal to any Deputies who may have an opportunity of doing so to impress on tenants, in their own interests, the importance of wholehearted co-operation with the Land Commission in this section of the work.
Turning to housing activities, 210 new dwelling-houses and 338 new out-offices were erected and eleven dwelling-houses were substantially reconstructed, by or with assistance from the Land Commission during the year ended 31st March last, the total expenditure on buildings being £321,494. Recently, some prototype dwelling-houses, to new architectural designs, were completed in Laois and Westmeath. The Land Commission are now considering the results of this experiment, with special reference to practical farmstead utility and building costs which must of course be assessed also. After such assessment, it is hoped that these prototype houses will serve as a useful guide for a range of new designs for general use in land settlement schemes.
Another important feature of activity during the past year was the vesting of a total of 5,350 properties, comprising holdings, parcels of land and rights of turbary, in tenants and allottees.
The collection of land purchase annuities continues to be most satisfactory. Out of a total of nearly £65¾ million collectable since 1933, payment of over £65½ million had been secured by the Land Commission at 31st March, 1960. At that date the actual amount outstanding was £147,574—less than one-quarter of one per cent. of the sum collectable; that is some index of the credit-worthiness of Irish farmers and I hasten to express my appreciation for their prompt payment of annuities.
Good progress continues to be made under the Land Commission scheme for resettlements out of the areas of high flood risk in the Shannon Valley. This Land Commission scheme is confined to farmers whose holdings have been seriously flooded or whose farms lack secure stands for livestock, against the risk of abnormal floods. The estimated cost of the scheme, approximately £100,000, is being defrayed out of the National Development Fund. The objective of this particular scheme is to give relief from the hazards of serious flooding, as far as this can be done, by providing alternative buildings on safer sites, together with dry-stands to accommodate stock in times of abnormal floods.
Altogether, some 105 farmers are involved and already something has been done, by the Land Commission, for about 80 of them, by way of building operations and allotments. The worst cases are being given priority. The expenditure to a current date amounts to approximately £45,800.
Some few farmers in the scheme have refused dry-site allotments for the erection of proposed new buildings. Apparently, they want the Land Commission to build on sites which are liable to flooding. It would be objectionable to expend public funds in that way and it is hoped that these particular beneficiaries will not prove unco-operative. The scheme is a voluntary one and can be carried into execution only to such extent as the individual beneficiaries will cooperate. For some of the outstanding cases, the question of further land acquisition is involved, possibly through a few further migrations. Negotiations are continuing in these cases. In the general interest, I would ask for the utmost co-operation from all concerned so that the completion of this very important scheme may be expedited.
At this stage I should like to comment on the outstanding congestion problem. According to the latest official statistics, there are in the State some 168,000 holdings above one acre and not exceeding 30 acres. It is probably safe to say that from 60,000 to 80,000 genuine small farmers, about half of whom are in western counties, are still trying to derive a subsistence livelihood from uneconomic holdings. These uneconomic farmers have a strong and serious claim to enlargement. The very large number of them involved makes one thing quite plain. The problem of congestion is still far from being finally solved.
In face of that, I cannot but be surprised that there are those who advocate an extension to the classes of allottees for Land Commission land. Here land is a valuable but limited commodity—very limited indeed by reference to the almost limitlessness of applicants for it. With the situation as I mentioned it, that is, upwards of 60,000 small-holders struggling on uneconomic units, it ought to be clear, and abundantly clear, that before there can be any question whatever of introducing a new group, those 60,000 who are already on the land in an uneconomic way must be regarded as a first charge on any land that becomes available to the State.
To put it another way; every new holding bought or created by the Land Commission and diverted to a person not already on the land, means the perpetuation of one or more of the existing small-holders on dwarf holdings not sufficient to give even a modest living. Let me put it still another way: the 40 odd acres needed to establish just one landless person would be sufficient to advance three or perhaps four existing small-holders to economic level.
I know it is said, and said as if it were something of a heresy and utterly opposed to reason, that the only way to qualify for land from the Land Commission is to have land already: it is easy to shift the heresy out of that facile statement by saying that the best way to qualify for land from the Land Commission is to have some land already but not enough to return a modest livelihood. There is no heresy in that but an article of sound policy, in the correctness of which I have an unswerving belief. Surely it is the height of sense to insist that upwards of 60,000 small-holders must be improved first before new recruits are brought in.
Any assessment of the extent of congestion automatically poses the question of the minimum size of economic holding or, as it is more often termed nowadays, the viable unit. I think it will be accepted that, having regard to the wide range of thriving farms throughout the country, the definition of an economic holding cannot be reduced to any dogmatic formula in simple terms of acreage. Neither can it be treated in practice as a problem in abstract economics.
Indeed, it is a complex issue of sociology, economics and agronomics, with very great emphasis on the human aspect. In my view, it is absurd to generalise that 35, 45, 65 or 105 acres is an economic farming unit. We have all seen, on the one hand, the individual with the 60 to 100 acre farm having most of it let to his more industrious neighbours and eventually being forced to sell out; and, on the other hand, the 30 acre ambitious farmer progressing to the extent that he becomes a major land-owner in his own parish.
The practical approach to the question of the size of the viable holding in this country, is to try to determine the desirable minimum unit and, in doing so, to ensure, having regard to the size of the country, that we cut our national land cloth according to our measure. There are so many deserving applicants for land that a solution lies in ascertaining—not how much land a farmer can work—but rather the minimum area on which an industrious farmer can be expected to succeed. It is on such basis only that the maximum number of families can be established on the land in economic security, this being amongst the Directive Principles of Social Policy outlined in the Constitution.
I can see no reason why a compact Land Commission standard holding, containing 33 acres of good Irish land, or equivalent larger acreage of varied quality, cannot be really rewarding, provided that it is intensively worked and that the allottee avails himself fully of the excellent advisory services operated by the county committees of agriculture. In Denmark—so often cited here as a country to be imitated in terms of agriculture—the farming economy is largely based on units of under 25 statute acres. It is not so much the size of holdings that matters as the competence and will with which the acres are worked.
While on this subject, I should refer to allegations which have been made in this House that many allottees of Land Commission standard holdings are selling out and emigrating because the allotments are too small. I can say, however, that these allegations are not borne out by investigation. As far as I can ascertain, the general experience is that Land Commission migrants have been quick to settle down and they work their new holdings remarkably well as a general rule. Naturally, it takes a little time to get properly established in new surroundings. In an undertaking of this kind, much depends on individual judgment and the course of circumstances, with runs of good-luck and ill-luck, but no well-disposed or even neutral person will withhold from our migrants a reasonable period of grace in which to find their feet.
The administration of the Game Preservation Act, 1930, which formerly came within the ambit of the Department of Justice, is now the responsibility of my Department. Since my appointment as Minister for Lands, I have been considering the lines on which game preservation and development on a national scale might best be guided. I welcome wholeheartedly the formation and growth of voluntary organisations for preservation of game and control of vermin and look forward to an expansion of this development with a view to providing the necessary groundwork for action on a national scale. Indeed, it goes without saying that the appearance of such organisations is ample evidence of the existence of a keen practical interest in our potentially valuable game resources.
I should like to reiterate my appeals for full co-operation by all interests— sporting, rural and agricultural—to ensure the success of the game movement, a vital activity which presents a challenge to all organisations concerned with sporting and rural life. It would, indeed, be a tragedy if sectional or partisan interests were to affect adversely the attainment of such a worthy aim.
My own approach to the subject of game promotion is flexible and unbiased, my primary concern being to see the emergence of an organisation, representative of the country as a whole, suited to our conditions, and firmly rooted in the pattern of rural life. As already intimated, the matter is at present under active consideration with a view to settling the lines of long-term policy, as soon as circumstances permit.
The rate of purchase of land by non-nationals is another important general aspect which calls for comment. As Deputies already know, this matter was investigated in 1950, when it was ascertained that during the previous decade a total of 50,000 acres had been purchased by 200 persons who were believed to be non-nationals. In fact, a number of them turned out to be of Irish origin. Also, many of the properties were of a residential type unsuitable for land division.
Last July, another investigation was made by the Garda Síochána with the co-operation of the Department of Justice into the extent of sizeable acquisitions of agricultural properties by non-nationals. The investigation period covered from April, 1957 to July, 1959. In summary, the returns showed that in the period of 2¼ years a total of 23 properties containing 7,027 acres had been purchased by reputed non-nationals. The vendors of three of these properties, containing 891 acres, were themselves non-nationals. In the same period also, 12 properties owned by non-nationals containing 2,327 acres were sold back to Irish nationals. The net sales to non-nationals covered by the inquiry, therefore, comprised 11 properties containing 4,700 acres in the period 1st April, 1957, to July, 1959—averaging 2,100 acres a year compared with the earlier average of 5,000 acres a year from 1940 to 1950.
Reasonable reciprocity in regard to property purchases could scarcely be denied. But close watch is being kept for any unreasonable or excessive developments and if it should transpire that the free play of economic forces was threatening the wide distribution of property which we fortunately have in this country, then I should be moved to suggest restrictive measures to my Government.
I have no hesitation in stating that suitable action will be taken against any attempted frustration of land settlement policy, whether by proposed sales to non-nationals or otherwise. In this connection, it should be noted that, in the case of properties to which the Land Acts apply, the sale of land to a new owner does not impair the ultimate power of the Land Commission to acquire such land for the relief of local congestion.
I shall now bring this opening statement towards conclusion with a reference to the Land Commission itself. As Deputies generally know, the Land Commission's functions are partly administrative and partly quasi-judicial. In the sphere of general policy and administration, the Minister for Lands has the overriding responsibility. But there are 14 functions listed in the Land Act, 1950, and clearly defined as "excepted matters". These functions arise in the day-to-day operations of land settlement and they touch very closely upon the fundamental private rights and circumstances of the individual citizen in relation to agricultural land. These are the quasi-judicial functions.
In relation to these statutory "excepted matters" the Land Commission has the status of a Court and functions independently of the Government. This principle was enshrined first in the Land Act, 1933 and again in the Land Act, 1950. There is general acceptance, in the light of experience, that such division of function is fundamental and I have no great quarrel with it.
Entrusted with wide powers in a difficult and contentious sphere, the Land Commission has onerous responsibilities and I am satisfied that they are discharged faithfully and impartially. I take this opportunity to express my appreciation of the work carried out during the past year.
As a people, we have a socially active conscience and that conscience will not be at ease until the problem of acute congestion which still persists in some areas is undone. This Estimate is directed at that problem and I confidently recommend it to the House.
