Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 15 Jun 1960

Vol. 182 No. 10

Committee on Finance. - Vote 42—Lands (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following motion:

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. (Minister for Lands.)

Mr. Dillon

When we adjourned this debate I was suggesting that some radical measure should be taken to repair the disastrous situation arising in the west of Ireland as a result of the mass emigration that has been taking place which is leaving a very large number of very small holdings derelict. The Land Commission should cause an inquiry to be made as to exactly how many holdings are now abandoned in the west of Ireland. When I speak of an "abandoned holding" I mean a holding from which the family has gone and the land of which is set on conacre to neighbours.

In many cases, where these holdings are now growing nothing but rushes, the Minister might properly ask the Land Commission to consider whether negotiations might not be opened, under the new powers the Land Commission have to purchase holdings for cash, to see if the owners of these holdings who have been driven into emigration would be prepared to sell them to the Land Commission so that they might be used to enlarge the holdings of their immediate neighbours.

I foresee that, even if that were done, it is not enough if we are to reverse the disastrous trend which is manifesting itself throughout the western counties. A very much closer degree of collaboration between the Land Commission and the Department of Agriculture is necessary. In an immense number of these holdings one of the urgent needs is to have the soil tested. Unless farmers get from a holding of 30 to 40 acres its maximum output, there is no prospect of their getting the standard of living which will maintain the rising generation in this country. Thirty-three acres used to be regarded up to quite recently as an economic holding. I think you will have to revise that. With the increased burden which we have put upon the small farmers of the west of Ireland and with the declining prices for agricultural produce, I think it is very doubtful whether 33 acres will now give a man a living. We are reaching a very critical point because if you enlarge a holding much beyond 40 acres, it will be no longer possible for one man to work it.

All these holdings are based on family labour. They are run by the farmer, his wife and family, but I believe still that if we could extend the ownership to farms of about 40 acres and if we could get the Department to collaborate enthusiastically in getting the soil tested, in helping the farmers to get out the necessary fertilisers and in assisting farmers in the technical problems of production and marketing, it would be possible to get from holdings of that size a reasonable living, which a considerable number of our young people might prefer to the alternative—emigration.

One of the difficulties in discussing this Estimate is this watertight division between the Department of Lands and the Department of Agriculture, because much of what the Department of Lands may undertake becomes nugatory if the people for whose benefit they do certain things do not follow it up by availing of the advice and facilities provided by the Department of Agriculture. I think that if the Department of Agriculture is not prepared to provide a national advisory service, the land division will have to follow the example of the beet sugar company and certain other enterprises and provide their own advisory services, because I am firmly convinced that launching small farmers out under modern conditions with 40 acres of land, with no advice how best to use it, is a very wasteful and ineffective procedure.

Personally, I would prefer to see the national advisory services administered by the Department of Agriculture working in close collaboration with the Land Commission. That is a matter which I suppose should be raised on the Agriculture Vote. If that is not available, then I think the Land Commission ought to consider providing an advisory service of their own.

It is an interesting thing that the Department of Lands does administer a number of credit schemes for a variety of improvements and so forth that farmers can undertake but I suppose the general question of credit is more appropriate to the Department of Agriculture again. Probably it is better it should be left to the Department of Agriculture, provided that the close collaboration which I suggest should exist is brought into being.

I wish the Minister would clear up one obscurity which exists. It was stated here by the Minister's predecessor, Deputy Childers, that there is now, as the result of a Land Act in the 1950's, no difficulty for a person who wishes to lease land to a neighbour in doing so. The old problem of creating a tenant right, Deputy Childers said, was eliminated by some provision of the Land Acts in the 1950's but I am told that, even though that hazard has been disposed of, there is some other difficulty about giving a lease for land in this country against which a good solicitor will warn his client. It has something to do with some leasehold Act.

The net point is: Can any person with safety to his own title give a neighbour a lease for 20 years for a particular piece of land or holding of land? I heard it advocated strongly that the Land Commission itself should lease land to young farmers. That case has been pressed upon the Commission by farmers' organisations in the country. I wonder would the Minister explain this to me? What is the difference between the Land Commission leasing the holding to a young farmer and the Land Commission selling the holding, under the existing Land Acts, to the same young farmer? The only difference I know is that if the Land Commission lease the land, the young farmer will be expected to pay an economic rent, whereas if the Land Commission sell the young farmer the same land, he will be asked to pay only one half of the economic rent. Is that not true? If he leases the land, the rent will be in perpetuity, whereas if he purchases the land, the rent will be a terminable annuity extended for about 54 years.

As I understand the present procedure, if a person has land given to him by the Land Commission and holds it for about ten years unvested, during that period it is open to the Land Commission to resume the holding, if it does not appear to them that the land is properly used. After ten years, it becomes the absolute property in fee simple of the tenant purchaser. What advantage is that to a young farmer in being allowed to lease? As far as I know, the only thing that is requisite to achieve the purpose of providing accommodation for the young farmers who have no land but have capital and know-how is that the existing categories of persons to whom the Land Commission are permitted by law to allot land should be altered so as to include amongst the eligible allottees landless persons who have capital and a certain stimulating education in an agricultural school or college. I should be glad if the Minister would say whether that is correct or otherwise.

The Minister, in answer to a Parliamentary Question addressed to him by me recently, said he was examining means whereby the issue of bonds by the Land Commission to persons from whom they purchase land will be expedited and that these inquiries had not at that time been completed. I should be glad to know now if any progress has been made in that direction and, if so, what.

Mr. Moher

They are as acceptable as Wood's Ha'pence.

Mr. Dillon

I think that land bonds paying 5½ per cent. are not a bad buy. The complaints I received are that the people cannot get them quickly after their land has been surrendered, not that they do not want to take them.

I think it a terrible thing that people here may accept what is becoming a current heresy, that is, that the day of the small farmer is done. It would be a great disaster for this country if that view were widely accepted. The truth is that in most European countries the majority of the farmers have holdings just as small as our farmers have. The fundamental difference between them is that, partly for geographical reasons and partly because their Governments have been more competent, they have much better marketing facilities than our farmers have.

Farmers on the Continent are naturally associated with a wide variety of markets by good rail transport while we have to depend very largely on shipping. Their small farmers are also sustained by effective marketing organisations, co-operative and otherwise, who have observers in their markets constantly watching those markets and developing the demand for the goods they are best able to produce and sending back information all the time to a comprehensive advisory service as to what would be most readily sold if the farmers produced it. They are also backed up by comprehensive systems of progeny testing which improve the quality of their livestock. If we had these things in this country, the future of our small farmers would be very good.

We have a problem here which many continental countries have not got and that is the great draw on our people to the available industrial employment in Great Britain because there is no language barrier. A Dane cannot so readily emigrate to Germany and get industrial employment there, first, because he is a foreigner in a foreign land and would require a work permit which he probably would not be given and, secondly, because, even if he did get the permit, he speaks Danish while the people amongst whom he would be living speak German. That obstruction does not exist between us and the British or American labour market and so it becomes all the more urgent for us to prevent the emigration from the land which threatens our survival if it is allowed to continue.

There are two points which I want to put to the Minister. The first is: what is being done with the Rockingham Estate? That estate was purchased by the Land Commission and is one of the best in Ireland. Every acre which was not under forestry was almost extravagantly maintained at the highest pitch of fertility and excellence. Almost all the grassland was reseeded within the last ten years, regardless of expense. I am told that at present it is being set for grazing cattle and that all the neighbouring farmers put so many cattle in on it at so much per head. That may be a proper arrangement for a very short time but it would be nothing short of a crime if the arable land at Rockingham were allowed to be treated in this way until it became almost useless.

Mr. Moran

It is purely a temporary measure.

Mr. Dillon

I hope it is not a long term project and that farmers will be installed on it who will guard its fertility and capacity for production. I am describing the situation at Rockingham in very restricted language. It might be very poetically described if I chose to repeat some of the language which I heard locally about the situation there.

The last point I want to make relates to Land Commission houses. The Land Commission build a lot of houses and I was delighted to hear Deputy Flanagan congratulate them on their new agricultural design. That reform was badly needed because the Land Commission houses were never outstanding for their beauty, whatever about their utilitarian value. However, we now have a series of schemes to provide running water for rural dwellers. Some of these schemes are administered by the Department of Local Government and others by the Department of Agriculture.

Is it unreasonable to suggest that, in this day and age, when the Land Commission are building a house for a tenant purchaser who will ultimately pay for it, instead of sinking a well and leaving it at that, they should instal a pressure pump and at least one tap in the kitchen, leaving it to the tenant to extend the water supply through the house, if he wishes to do so? In the old days, if you wanted to instal a water supply, you had to erect a tank on the roof and a pump to raise the water. That involved a good deal of difficulty and then there was the question of power.

Now the Minister for Transport and Power tells us that rural electrification is very near completion, that it will be completed within the next two years, so that electric power is available in almost every part of Ireland. It is now possible to get a pump which does not require any tank and which will work automatically when the tenant turns on the tap. I do not think it is unreasonable to suggest that when the State is building a house for a tenant purchaser, that house should have running water.

I am deliberately pausing now because I do not think, either, that it is unthinkable that if we are building a house and putting in running water we should provide a septic tank and instal the usual modern conveniences of most residences. I say that deliberately for this reason, that if you live in rural Ireland and want to get a septic tank installed it is quite a problem to find an engineer, (1) competent to do the work and (2) willing to exercise the requisite supervision to ensure that it will be properly installed. Presumably when the Land Commission are building houses they have on their staff competent engineers and architects who could supervise that kind of work and see that it is properly done. If it were done, I do not believe that it would be a very expensive addition to a house.

There is all the difference in this wide world between a house in rural Ireland that has running water, a bathroom, lavatory and hot and cold water and a house which has none of these amenities and from which the tenant's wife must perennially travel with a bucket in each hand to draw water from the well. Seeing that the Commissioners have now improved their architectural standards, I suggest that they might seriously consider providing these minimal amenities in any houses they may build in future because I believe, in 1960, less is not enough.

I differ from some Deputies who seemed to think the Land Commission should be swept away. I think the Land Commission has useful work to do. The Land Commission can look back with pride on much of the work it has done but I do suggest that, if the Land Commission is to do useful work in future, it must wake up to the fact that much closer co-operation between itself and the Department of Agriculture is necessary and that the development of an effective advisory service is an essential part of the ultimate success of the work of the Land Commission. Whether that service is to be provided by the Commissioners themselves, as has been done by the Sugar Company, or by the Department of Agriculture is a matter which the Ministers, between them, must determine.

Mr. Jones

At Column 1088, Volume 182, No. 8 of the Official Report, the Minister is reported as referring to the outstanding congestion problem. He quoted the figure of 168,000 holdings in the State above one acre and not exceeding 30 acres. Most of these holdings are situated in the west of Ireland. In the Limerick constituency which I represent there are a great many small holdings. It is a difficult problem to rearrange these or to enlarge them because of the fact that there are so many of them within a limited area. For that reason I find myself in disagreement with the Minister who expressed surprise that there are people who would advocate an extension to the classes of allottees for Land Commission land. On these small holdings, on which the tenants find great difficulty in eking out a livelihood, there are young men who have no opportunity of being considered for land that becomes available.

I spoke of this problem before and make no apology for raising it again. The previous Minister referred to the possibility of arranging for a longer lease of lands for people who take land to enable them to make a living in dairying or raising of livestock. Normally, land is taken for 11 or 12 months. Perhaps it has been explained in the meantime what the length of the lease might be, but I have not seen any publication of it. It would be a help where the pool of land is growing small and the land that does become available is at a distance from the congested areas if small farmers' sons could get such land on long lease. The previous Minister referred also to an investigation which he would make into the situation. I do not know whether or not that investigation has been concluded. If it has been, we should like to know what the result has been.

I wonder if there is rigid enforcement of the regulation in regard to the distance of applicants' residences from land that is being divided? The regulation refers to one mile. There is no necessity for rigid adherence to that rule. With modern transport facilities and farm machinery a farmer could very easily and competently deal with land that might be farther from his residence than one mile.

There is one other portion of the Minister's statement with which I wish to deal. It concerns land offered by public auction. Under the Land Act of 1950 the operation of the Land Commission in respect to the acquisition of land by public auction was confined to the relief of congestion. While the figures given in the Minister's statement show that the amount of land that has passed into the hands of outsiders is not very large, in view of the Minister's statement that there are some 168,000 holdings above one acre and not exceeding 30 acres, it must be considered that the 4,700 acres sold to non-nationals in 2½ years would accommodate 100 families on the basis of about 40 acres per family. If land could be bought by the Land Commission on the open market, the vendors would be at no disadvantage and this land would be available for the relief of these deserving people to whom the Minister referred in introducing his Estimate.

I should like also to congratulate the Department on the new houses they are building. They have an attractive appearance and from what I hear the interior is attractive as well. That modern advance in regard to the design of houses, a part of the Land Commission's work to which many people might not advert, is to be commended.

It only remains for me to reiterate that, as far as the constituency which I represent is concerned, we claim we are entitled to be regarded as a congested district because of the large number of small holdings of which the Land Commission is well aware, in that part of Limerick to which I referred. We would welcome anything that can be done for the people in that area who are trying to maintain themselves and their families on these small holdings.

Mr. Moloney

I am glad the Minister saw fit in the course of his introductory speech to refer at some length to the problem of land congestion. In recent times a number of well-intentioned people seem to be finding fault with the policy of the Land Commission in regard to this problem. One can expect that from well-meaning people in a democratic country. They have the right to criticise the administration of Departments of State but criticism, desirable though it may be, is of little value if the solutions offered are impracticable.

It is advocated that the Land Commission should provide financial facilities to enable landless people to acquire land, particularly the second and third sons of farmers who cannot be settled on their own farms. Various individuals and bodies connected with the land problem have in fact advocated that the Land Commission should go around the country purchasing land, either by public auction or private treaty, and thus create a pool of land for division amongst such people. That is easier said than done. First of all, I do not think the Land Commission as a Government Department is entitled, or should be expected, to do that. If such a course were adopted, I am sure some of those people who advocate this type of action would be the first to say that the Land Commission were buying land at enhanced prices with money put at their disposal by the Government.

I do not see any reason why the Land Commission should be expected to be the bank for the provision of finance for the purchase of land. The provision laid down by statute for the accommodation of a person in acquiring his land on an annuity basis is an entirely different business from paying a substantial sum to a person to acquire property. The commercial banks would be the proper body to deal with the advance of money for such purchases. There is also the Agricultural Credit Corporation. It would not be proper for me on this Estimate to deal with the activities of that corporation but, in affording such facilities, I imagine it would be serving the purpose for which it was set up, namely, to provide agricultural credit whether for the purpose of land acquisition or for the purchase of stock or machinery.

Those two sources are available to creditworthy people who want to buy land on the market. I am sure the commercial banks would give them reasonable facilities. Although there are some people who would not commend themselves to any agency in respect of the purchase and operation of a parcel of land, there are others in whom confidence could be placed.

However, before one considers the provision of land for people who have not land already, one must deal with the problem of making existing holdings economic. The Minister has told us that there are a large number of holdings, particularly in the western counties, which are still uneconomic. From experience in our own constituencies, we know that a large percentage of holdings in the poorer areas are uneconomic. It is good economic policy for the Government, through the Land Commission, to make these holdings economic. They are not serving a useful purpose as they are.

The Minister has explained the difficulties with which the Land Commission has to contend in the acquisition of land and many Deputies are aware of it. When large farms come under the notice of the Land Commission as suitable for acquisition, though this does not happen so often in southern or western areas, the owners resort to every legitimate means within their power to prevent the Land Commission acquiring them. As I say, we do not have that problem very much in the south, for the simple reason that there are not many properties there suitable for direct acquisition. Any activity which takes place there is more or less through the exchange of holdings, whereby an existing landholder offers his uneconomic holding to the Land Commission in exchange for an economic holding in another part of the country.

I would say that the Land Commission's policy in that regard is one that has stood the test of time, but some people take the view that the size of holdings which the Land Commission offers to these people is not sufficiently large to guarantee an economic living. I do not think that is so. There is a tendency nowadays among the families of farmers not to remain on the land and often it is very difficult to get even one member of a family to stay on the family homestead and farm it. However, I understand that the usual size of holdings parcelled out by the Land Commission in recent years has been approximately 40 to 50 acres, and I believe that if a holding of that size is properly worked it can provide a very good economic living.

Another matter about which the Land Commission has been rather conservative is the acquisition of land adjacent to small towns and villages for the provision of accommodation holdings for the residents in such villages. Most of the residents in Irish villages are people with small shops or who have casual employment, be they self-employed, or with local farmers or contractors, and if each household had a piece of land it could make a very big difference to their standard of living. The centralisation of trade has generally undermined the trade of these small shops and the people who own them would be in a very bad way were it not for the fact that they usually own a few acres of land adjacent to the town in which they live. They keep a cow or two to provide milk for themselves, to sell in their shops or to supply to creameries, and this provides a very useful supplement to their normal source of income and has enabled many of them to keep their heads above water in recent times.

Generally speaking, I do not think the Land Commission is favourably inclined towards providing accommodation holdings on the lines I have suggested, but I know a number of villages and towns in my own constituency where there is a reasonable possibility of acquiring land by negotiation through an exchange arrangement, and where the demand for local allotments and accommodation holdings is very strong. I would suggest to the Minister that he might have a word with the Land Commission on that subject now, because it is a problem that will have to be tackled sooner or later, and there is no point in shelving it until such time as the question of general congestion is settled. This is a form of congestion in itself and, indeed, an acute one from the point of view of the people concerned.

The Minister dealt with the establishment of certain personnel connected with his Department and mentioned people who were formerly supervising gangers. I entirely approve of that arrangement and I am glad the Department of Lands had the initiative—I should say courage—to cater properly for that type of employee. Up to now I do not think anybody bothered about their interests and I think it is a step in the right direction to have them established on a Civil Service status with security and pension rights, which is essential to get loyal service from workers.

I also notice that the Minister has introduced an incentive bonus for ordinary workers employed in the operations of the Land Commission, somewhat similar to that provided for forestry workers. That is a very wise step because the supervision of workers on estates is rather difficult and an incentive bonus will help to get a better standard of efficiency and a higher degree of productivity from them. I believe that any moneys the Minister provides for incentive bonuses will give a good return in future.

I should have dealt previously with the delay which takes place in the resetting and reassigning of lands taken over by the Land Commission by way of exchange or direct acquisition. To say the least of it, a considerable time elapses before the Land Commission puts such land into the permanent use for which it was intended, and various excuses for that are given in reply to Dáil question and queries addressed direct to the Land Commission. Though I can well imagine that with so many interests involved, and so many consultations necessary before a final rearrangement can be carried out, a certain amount of delay is inevitable, yet I think a lot of the delay is inexcusable, to put it mildly.

I know of one property acquired three years ago and the resettlement of the 100 acres involved is being held up because it is understood that another adjacent property may come on the market. I do not think that is a good excuse. There is no certainty that the other property will come on the market and there is no certainty that the Land Commission will proceed to acquire it. I think a reasonable time has elapsed for this land to be divided for the purposes for which it was acquired, though I must admit that it is at present let by the Land Commission on very reasonable terms. However, that is beside the point. It is a source of agitation and Deputies and other people in public life are being pestered by would-be applicants to press their claims. I think the sooner it is finally disposed of the better. If the Land Commission would make some more expeditious arrangement it would be to the advantage of all concerned. It would certainly be good from the point of the Land Commission itself because it would inspire more confidence in the general standard of efficiency.

Deputy Dillon referred to the style of Land Commission houses and out-offices. Certainly the design is a credit to the Land Commission. One cannot help noticing these homesteads in rural areas. They hold attention as compared with the farm houses erected by private enterprise. I think the addition of the amenities suggested by Deputy Dillon would be an excellent idea. He referred to pressure pumps in connection with the laying on of a water supply. The pressure pump would be a rather doubtful economy in this country where there is an abundant supply of water which can be tapped through gravitational forces. Experiments should be carried out to discover if a gravitation supply is possible. Even though it might be more expensive initially it would prove, I think, a better job; it takes care of itself, does not entail the incurring of expense by way of electricity, or equipment, and gives more satisfactory results in the long run.

Water should be installed in these Land Commission houses. These houses are inevitably a model in particular districts and the installation of water and other amenities would act as an incentive to neighbours to follow suit.

Mr. Davern

It is not, I think, in keeping with the general policy of Fianna Fáil for the Land Commission to keep lands for such long periods prior to dividing them. The Shanbally Estate has been in the hands of the Land Commission for a number of years. Unproductive estates should be taken over and divided. The Minister should make inquiries into the running of these estates. I have in mind the Murray Moore Estate of some 800 acres on which only four or five men are employed. I know that the tendency is for fewer labourers to be employed because of the introduction of machinery. Nobody can prevent that reduction. Even Deputy Dillon, when he occupied a box office seat, did not try to prevent it. Its prevention would not pay dividends.

There are many tenants in my constituency who were promised water as long ago as twenty-five years back. They have not got it yet. The Grace Estate was divided well over twenty years ago and water has not yet been installed for some of the tenants. The Minister should look into the position immediately.

With regard to land division as a whole, we are coming near the end now. Most of the big estates have been taken over by Fianna Fáil Governments from time to time and divided amongst uneconomic holders and landless men. I am sorry that cottiers are excluded. It is quite true that cottiers in former times were failures when given holdings, but the failures of the past should not debar cottiers today from getting a bit of land on which to keep a cow and do a little bit of tillage.

There were failures in the past. Many of them sold the land they were given. The Land Commission should not allow anybody to sell the land he gets from the Land Commission. If a man cannot work the holding satisfactorily, or make a livelihood out of it, he should give the land back to the Land Commission. He should not be permitted to sell it just for the sake of getting some money. I am not, of course, against a man selling in order to better himself. By and large, a hold should be kept on tenants and they should not be allowed to sell except for the purpose of getting a larger farm.

I want to bring to the attention of the Minister the fact that cottiers have been given allotments in other constituencies. I understood that it was a hard and fast rule of the Land Commission that applications for land from landless men would not be entertained. Reading some of the Leinster papers I discovered that landless men were getting allotments in Carlow and in some parts of Laois-Offaly. There should not be one rule for one county and another for another. It is true to say that circumstances differ to an appreciable extent, but yet I do not think that hard and fast rule should be adhered to.

I have urged in the past that where suitable landless men are anxious to get land they should be given it on a rental basis. Land should be taken over and given to suitable young men who have proved their knowledge of farming was such that they would naturally make a success of any land they could get. If after a period of, say, 15 years—the usual period before investment—they made a success of it, they should be given title to the land, either at a continuation of rent or at some charge considered sufficient to recoup the Exchequer. If, on the other hand, they did not prove successful, there is nothing to prevent the Land Commission from putting them out. That should be made clear to them when they accept the farm, and in those circumstances I think the Land Commission could put them out without any qualms of conscience.

In recent years, because of the increased prices for milk, wheat, barley and so on, the price of land has increased very much, and, therefore, the purchase of land has gone beyond the reach of the ordinary young man or farmer's son.

Mr. Dillon

Why?

Mr. Davern

Because Fianna Fáil have catered so well for the farmer that it is now an economic proposition to be the owner of land. I know the Deputy is very disappointed when a farmer gets something. He cannot sleep for a month or two. He is like a roaring lion, and the unfortunate inhabitants of Ballaghaderreen cannot sleep either.

Mr. Dillon

I think the Deputy doth protest too much.

Mr. Davern

The Deputy should say to himself: "The Minister for Lands and the Minister for Agriculture are greater men than I am. They made a success where I failed so ignominiously." That is all for the good of the farming community and the Deputy should not be so annoyed.

As time goes on and as Fianna Fáil policy becomes more acceptable to the people——

Mr. Dillon

Another 100,000 will leave.

Mr. Davern

——there will be more weary and sleepless nights for the Deputy. I would advise him not to take it so badly. If three or four young men are in a farm, the most you can possibly do is make a division of 40 to 50 acres to each, and less in certain circumstances, so that it is almost out of the question for farmers to provide land for their sons. Therefore, I would ask the Minister to consider seriously the question of making it possible for them to be granted allotments through some form of tenancy. The suggestion might be developed by people with greater knowledge.

I congratulate the Minister on the magnificent way he has handled the work of the Land Commission and I thank him for the many divisions which have been carried out in my constituency. I am sure I am not asking too much when I ask him to ensure that these outstanding divisions will not be allowed to continue and that immediate division will take place.

Mr. S. Flanagan

The Minister has endured a long debate and I do not propose to keep him very much longer. Running like a thread through the whole debate has been the problem of excessive rural depopulation. It was mentioned by Deputy Dillon and Deputy Blowick and, indeed, by nearly everybody who spoke.

Mr. Dillon

Except Deputy Davern.

Mr. S. Flanagan

Deputy Blowick suggested that the people of the west hold grimly on to their land. How is that consistent with the statement of Deputy Dillon that he knows a place in East Mayo where seven families have locked up their homes and gone away from the west I happen to know that is true, and I know that many of the houses which were left had previously been built or reconstructed with moneys provided by the Government and the ratepayers. But Deputy Dillon goes on to suggest that this was brought about through the sheer incompetence or inadvertence of the Government and that the Government and the Land Commission are complacent about it. He goes on to suggest that we, the Fianna Fáil backbenchers, are either closing our eyes to the fact or, knowing it, refuse to talk about it. I, for one, do not close my eyes to the fact and I am not afraid to talk about it. It disquiets me just as much as it does Deputy Dillon. But may I say that the Government and the Land Commission cannot be accused of being complacent about it?

There is a place in my own constituency—Deputy Blowick and myself played a considerable part in helping the Land Commission there—where the Land Commission spent something like £70,000 in resettling people who had been for centuries on miserable, rundale holdings, divided up into many little patches and living in low-lying small, poor houses, although admittedly well-kept. The Land Commission gave each of those tenants a new holding, which was either in one single unit or in two compact units; they gave them £900 of a free grant and £200 by way of loan.

They moved the people from these old houses and put them up on the side of the higher land in healthy surroundings. No sooner had the Land Commission changed them from being tenants into being owners, by getting them to sign on the dotted line, when two or three of them locked their doors and went away. It was not complacency on the part of the Government and the Land Commission that made them spend £70,000 of our money on these people. But I should like to ask what is the answer to that problem? What are you going to say or do to prevent that man, now that he is, for the first time, in a position in which he can carry out farming operations as distinct from grovelling operations, from locking his door and going away?

It was suggested by Deputy Davern— and I cannot possibly agree with him —that land should be given on a rental basis or on trial. One of the things on which we have prided ourselves is security of tenure. By giving land to a person on a conditional basis you immediately destroy security of tenure. By saying to him: "I give you this farm of land and this building and this grant on condition that you stay here for the next 20 years whether you like that or not and that your family will continue to occupy it," you are doing something which is contrary to the democratic structure of this State and the Constitution under which we live.

Mr. Dillon

Is that not what they do?

Mr. S. Flanagan

Not when they vest the holding.

Mr. Blowick

Up to the time of vesting.

Mr. S. Flanagan

Up to the time of vesting, yes, but the whole basis of the land code is that the land should be vested as quickly as possible in the person in order to give him pride of ownership. Indeed, many complaints have been made about the Land Commission because for such a long period, they refuse or fail to vest the land or the buildings in the people for whom they are intended. Deputy Moloney complained a short time ago about delays in setting land and I am inclined to agree with him up to a point. If there is not an immediate, reasonable prospect of additional lands being acquired in an area, the Land Commission should go ahead and divide the lands they actually have on hands.

In my constituency, there are examples of land being held for as many as 20 years without being divided because substantial additional land was expected to be acquired in due course. The Land Commission did not expect that "in due course" was to be 20 years, but that is what happened. I do not think that is likely to happen again because the Land Commission are aware that lands do not improve when let in conacre and that people will put their hearts into the work only under private ownership. But then, as I say, the land having been vested in them, all the necessary money having been spent and having been put into good houses —perhaps for the first time in the history of the family—they lock the door. If anybody can give me an answer to that question, or if anybody can give an answer to the Land Commission or the Government, as to why they do that, the whole country will be very thankful.

Mr. Blowick

The answer is simple: the farmer at present is not being paid for his produce or his labours.

Mr. S. Flanagan

I do not concede for a moment that what Deputy Blowick says is true. I believe the answer is a social answer. I believe, firstly, that younger men are more attracted nowadays to the ready money in factories in England and America. Secondly, and more important, I believe, that young women are not prepared in any circumstances to live on the land and that if young men want to get married—which is a sensible thing for any young man to want —they must go to America or England to get somebody because there are no girls at home to marry. I remember two or three years ago when an assistant of mine came into the office crying because her friend had gone to England and there was nobody of her own age, which was about 18 or 19, left.

Mr. Dillon

This is a pretty grim picture.

Mr. S. Flanagan

I am talking about the area from which Deputy Dillon said seven families had emigrated within a distance of half a mile. I have seen the houses just as much as Deputy Dillon and I think he will bear me out that beyond seeing children of school-going age, up to 16, from the ages 17 to 30, you will not find more than two or three girls in the whole parish who are unmarried. I do not know the answer to that social problem. It is unfair and wrong to suggest that it is the fault of the Land Commission and that the Land Commission, by waving a magic wand, can solve it.

Another point which I want to raise is in regard to houses. I believe that the Land Commission should make a particular effort to turn over every house they acquire with a minimum of delay. They must know well that a house which is locked up becomes, within a matter of less than 12 months, dilapidated and broken down and a house without fires and without ventilation will deteriorate with extraordinary speed. I am afraid I have to say there are several cases throughout the country where the houses have been retained by the Land Commission without being given to anybody for far too long a period. That should not be allowed to happen in the future.

Indeed, it was brought to my notice about a week ago, perhaps wrongly, that there is a regulation which prohibits the Land Commission from allotting a house for a period of 12 months. It was the first time I heard that and I do not know if it is true. If it is true, it should be changed immediately. I do not believe it is but, in practice, houses seem to be kept for a minimum of one year. That is too long and I suggest that the Land Commission should decide straight away which applicant is entitled to the house and put him in occupation. Of course, in recent times, the cost of acquiring lands, the cost of proving title and such other matters, have greatly increased, with the result that annuities which people are being asked to pay are out of all proportion to what they used to be. Time marches on and the Land Commission should make every effort not to discourage people from taking land because of annuities which perhaps are beyond their capacity to bear.

A final matter which I should like to mention to the Minister is one which I raised seriously with his predecessor, that is, the present system in the Land Commission of proving title. Since the Minister himself is a lawyer, he should take steps to simplify that procedure, where possible. The delays in the Land Commission are quite considerable at the moment and it becomes particularly disquieting to people who are being paid in bonds if in the meantime the bonds depreciate in value. As the Minister knows that has happened on several occasions. In effect, it means that if the person were paid through sale by public auction or private treaty he would in the ordinary course receive full value but through delays and the depreciation in the value of the bonds, he is losing one quarter of the money due to him. This is a serious matter and one which the Minister, as a lawyer, should appreciate he is bound to do everything he possibly can to alleviate.

Minister for Lands (Mr. Moran)

A few specific matters were raised by Deputy Dillon which I think I should clear up first. The Deputy posed me the question as to whether land could be leased. The position is that there is nothing in the world to stop anybody leasing land for a period of 20 years, if he just gets the Land Commission's consent, which is readily given. A public announcement was made by my predecessor in November, 1958, dealing with this matter, but even since that announcement on this question of leasing land, the number of applications that have come to the Land Commission have really been insignificant. There were only 20 to 30 cases.

Since the 1936 Land Act, the equity of a tenant to come in under the Land Acts is gone and, therefore, from the landlord's point of view, if any letting is made now, there is no question of a tenant acquiring any legal rights under the Land Acts, so that for those who want to know, land can be leased for a period of years. It is a question of a bargain being made between the parties themselves. If application is sent to the Land Commission and consent is applied for, as I have said, it is readily available, unless the transaction would cover up some socially undesirable movement, as for example, someone grabbing a lot of land in this way.

Mr. Dillon

Before the Minister leaves that, may I take it on his authority that no tenant right under any Act is created and that the leasehold tenant does not acquire a right to hold the land against the landlord, if the first lease has run out?

Mr. Moran

The Deputy is taking me correctly. I am saying that has been the position since 1936.

Mr. Dillon

The Minister is sure there is no Act, other than the Land Act, which would give a leasehold tenant an automatic right to renew the lease if he had complied with all the terms and conditions of the original?

Mr. Moran

There is no law I know of at the present time. Of course, there is the possibility I was thinking of, under the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1931, that if he carried on some kind of business, he might acquire certain business equities. At present, the tenant accepts the terms of the lease but acquires no such rights under the Land Acts.

Mr. Dillon

I do not want to interrupt the Minister but I assure him there is a good deal of misunderstanding about this matter in the country. I suppose it derives from the age-old belief that a leasehold created a tenant right. If the Minister desires to promote this business, it would be well if the Land Commission examined the matter and, on a suitable occasion, he could make a positive statement declaring that no tenant right, or no permanent right, was created in the lessees.

Mr. Moran

That could be done. I quite understand the misunderstandings that may be abroad about this matter because, under the 1923 Act, if the tenant, as far as my recollection goes, was there on a certain date—15th April, 1921, I think—he came in. We had, at a later stage, further tenants being brought in, but since the 1936 Act, that position has been changed and any lettings now made do not qualify under the Land Acts or the land code.

Deputy Dillon and Deputy S. Flanagan also raised the question of expediting the Land Commission procedure with regard to purchase. In reply to a question put down by Deputy Dillon, last week, I think, I gave the actual figures for the delay which, indeed, is very long. It is 27 months, as far as I recollect, from the date of getting possession, to the date of the issue of the money. I want to make it clear that so far as the Land Commission delay is concerned, of that period of 27 months, only two months are taken up with them. I fear that my colleague, Deputy S. Flanagan, and my profession generally, are very much to blame for delays of this kind.

Mr. Blowick

That is open confession, anyway.

Mr. Moran

I know the scale of fees, which is now being adjusted, was very small and the tendency, I suppose, in busy solicitors' offices was to leave on the long finger something they regarded as not being worth very much from a business point of view. At all events, I realise that the procedure is rather archaic and gives rise to a certain amount of delay. It was for that reason that I recently had discussions with the Incorporated Law Society with a view to devising some means of short-circuiting the existing procedure. That matter is under examination and I hope, in the very near future, to be able to provide procedure that will, largely, shorten the time-lag.

With regard to the question of delay in the forestry section, I did abolish the requisition for the discharge of equities in cases up to £500. That is having a very salutary effect on shortening the time-lag and getting over the delays. I hope, in conjunction with the Incorporated Law Society, to be able to provide some procedure on the Land Commission side which will substantially cut down the delay that now exists.

Some comments were made by Deputies about land bonds and their value. My information is that over the past three years, they did not vary very much. They are standing at approximately 99 and there has not been the great drop there used to be in these bonds. The market seems to be buoyant enough and they should yield 5½ per cent. In my view, they are an excellent investment. I hope, however, that by expediting the procedure, the complaints voiced here by Deputy Flanagan, about the danger of a drop in the bonds between the time the lands are taken and the time the money is paid, will be largely relieved.

On the question of farmers' sons leasing land, let me say that the job of the Land Commission, as I conceive it, is to relieve congestion. As I pointed out in my opening statement, there are about 60,000 congests still left in the land slums of the country. Every class whom it is sought to bring in under the wing of the Land Commission will reduce the work the Land Commission are there to do, that is, to deal with these 60,000 uneconomic holders.

It is not correct to state, as has been stated by Deputy Moloney, I think, that cottiers cannot get land. Cottiers, in fact, do from time to time get land. It all depends on the local situation. It all depends on whether there is enough land in the area to go around, having dealt first, of course, with the uneconomic holders in the immediate vicinity. Accommodation plots comprising 1,342 acres have been given over the past eight years, from 1951 to 1958 to 280 people. That gives an average of 3½ acres to each person and the vast majority of these would have been cottiers.

Mr. Blowick

Would they have been landless men? Or could they be described as such?

Mr. Moran

Some of them might be described as landless men but a good many of them were cottiers. Again, getting back to the principle I have enunciated, the suggestion that you can give cottiers 10 acres or that we can provide for farmers' sons out of a national land pool which does not exist is completely unrealistic. Whatever purpose the people who advocate that have they are, to my mind, holding out hope to a class of people for whom there is no hope, as far as the vast bulk of land division is concerned. That issue was raised here by Deputy O. J. Flanagan and others and I think I could do no better than quote the statement by Deputy Dillon in the House some years ago. He well realises that there is not enough land to go around and that there is not nearly enough to give everybody in the country anything like 50 acres or even a good deal less.

Speaking here on the Estimate for Lands on 24th April, 1959 as reported in Vol. 161, columns 179-182, Deputy Dillon said:

I thought I might offer those few words in order to restrain the other warriors I see licking their chops ready to intervene. Deputy Cunningham exasperated me when he said he wanted to give everybody in this country 50 acres of land. The island is not big enough. There are not fifty acres for everybody, if you took all the farmers in Ireland and settled them. There is not nearly enough of land on the island to give every farmer 50 acres.

And he proceeded on the same page to say:

One of the elementary facts is that there are not 50 acres of land to give each farmer. What are you going to do? Are you going to build the land into the Atlantic Ocean? It is all very well to say: "Now, Deputy Childers, you are Minister. Will you give everybody 50 acres, because that is what Fianna Fáil wants?" No one adverts to the fact that there are not 50 acres for everybody.

And, in his own inimitable language, further down on the same page, he says, in reply to Deputy Cunningham who intervened to say that there were not 20 acres, or five acres, for everybody:

Then what the hell is the use asking the Minister to give them 50 acres each? If Deputy Cunningham were talking through his hat I would not have minded, but I thought he was talking seriously. That is what exasperated me. It shows you the kind of puerile nonsense that is going on.

Mr. Dillon

There were 100,000 more people here then than there are now. The Minister's Party cleared them out.

Mr. Moran

I shall deal with the people the Deputy cleared out.

Mr. Dillon

There are seven farms closed down in one road.

Mr. Blowick

There are 19 in the parish of Louisburgh.

Mr. Moran

I shall deal with that in due course but I want to get this right. Deputy Dillon in 1957 thought that the idea that there were 50 acres of land for everybody here was arrant nonsense.

Mr. Dillon

Since then, the people have gone and the land is deserted.

Mr. Moran

I have told the Deputy and the House that, in my opinion, there are still from 60,000 to 80,000 uneconomic holders on the land. Does the Deputy suggest that there are 50 acres for each of these? I am quite sure there are not and the larger you make the unit, the less the number of people you can deal with and the less congestion you can deal with. Therefore, in my view, the suggestion of bringing in landless men and giving them farms and providing land for cottiers—up to 10 acres as has been suggested—is unreal. Every new class you include, merely cuts across the policy laid down by the State since its inception for the relief of congestion.

I should like somebody to tell me where this land is to be found to give to these people. I do not want to go into the argument of the justification for giving a farmer's son a present from the State of £3,500. It could equally well be contended that the taxpayer would be as much entitled to give a £3,500 present to the shoemaker's son, the small shopkeeper's son, or to any other section of the community. Let us be realistic about the matter. It is time we made up our minds that as regards the amount of land likely to be available through Land Commission operations, the first charge on that land are the people in the land slums and, having them to deal with, it is unrealistic to talk about giving large farms or providing for other classes.

I have heard from both sides of the House about this rather extraordinary village where seven houses have closed up.

Mr. Dillon

Are there not 19 in the parish of Louisburgh?

Mr. Moran

Not to my knowledge.

Mr. Blowick

Well, the Minister may take it there are. These people have gone, to my knowledge.

Mr. Moran

It is very easy to make sweeping statements as to the number of houses being closed up. From the knowledge available to me in regard to what I call modern Land Commission holdings, the number closed up is absolutely insignificant on a national scale. I know nothing about this deserted village quoted by Deputy Dillon. If one followed up the histories of the seven individuals concerned, like those who went down on the bridge of San Luis Rey, I wonder whether we could draw any conclusions and find some cause and effect——

Mr. Dillon

Let the Minister ask his colleague, Deputy Flanagan.

Mr. Moran

Deputy Dillon waxed very eloquent on this subject and in connection generally with people leaving the land when he went on record on 26th May, 1955. On the 26th May, 1955, I think he was still Minister for Agriculture. As reported at Column 225 of the Official Report, Volume 151, he said:

I have great sympathy for Deputy Madden's concern about migration from the land which is going on, but I would ask Deputies of this House to be realistic in regard to this matter.

It is not alone an Irish problem. It is a problem which is perplexing every country in the world.

Later on, he quotes the position in the United States of America:

Do Deputies in this House realise that 50 years ago 60 per cent. of the population of the United States of America lived on the land and that the remaining 40 per cent. were in the cities? Note the percentages to-day: there are 20 per cent. on the land and 80 per cent. in the cities. There is no use blinding our eyes to the fact that transport is so fast between this country and Great Britain and family relationships are so numerous on both sides of the Channel that the big centres of industrial development in Great Britain are operating on our rural areas just as Chicago is operating on Dakota, just as St. Louis is operating on the State of Kansas, and it is illusory for us to imagine that boys and girls who are going to industrial employment in Great Britain at the present time are going primarily as a result of economic hardship.

Mr. Dillon

Hear, hear. It is not boys and girls who are going now. It is their fathers and mothers.

Mr. Blowick

The whole family.

Mr. Dillon

Pram, cradle and furniture.

Mr. Moran

They were going then, according to the Deputy.

Mr. Dillon

Boys and girls.

Mr. Moran

This was the Deputy's view as expressed by him at that time.

Mr. Dillon

Yes.

Mr. Moran

Deputy Dillon went on to deal with the problem of people leaving the land. At Column 227 he is reported as saying:

It is not an Irish problem; it is a world problem. Whether it will adjust itself or not, I am not sure because it is bringing in its train the introduction of a very great degree of mechanisation that might not have come but for this problem of getting labour to work upon the land.

Mr. Dillon

Hear, hear!

Mr. Moran

The Deputy continued:

What is the answer to this problem? I do not know the answer to this problem.

The Deputy did not know the answer to the flight from the land in 1955. Evidently, he has not found a solution since, from anything he contributed in the debate. However, he would try to get the House to believe that this matter started during the past three years and that, before that, in the good days of inter-Party Government, there was no such thing as flight from the land when he was Minister for Agriculture in that year. His explanation— and it is correct—was that there has been a movement from the land all over the world and certainly all over Europe and that our figures on this issue, taking them all in all, are approximately at par with those of countries such as Sweden and Denmark.

Deputy Dillon talked about certain farms and said the doors were locked. The Land Commission evidently spent a lot of money on them, but there is this to be said: Whoever comes after them will have a workable unit of land and will not have the dreadful problem of the intermixed plots that was the position in these areas before now.

I have often thought that the Land Commission, in dealing with estates, might be just as well advised to go according to the proposition of creating the unit irrespective of who happened to be there. Time and again, I have noticed that people who were there one day moved off in a few years and somebody else would then be there. The real objective should be to make the unit as compact and viable as we all desire.

As far as the other parts of the congested areas are concerned, what has been said about some people who go away is very true: it is not solely an economic problem. People in this country are not prepared to accept to-day the standard of living not alone of their grandfathers but of their fathers. Being a free society, they are at liberty to go and better themselves if they can. Indeed, I for one certainly would not blame them for leaving some of the congested areas; some people go and do not come back. A number of them, having gone and got some capital together, come back. I do not know, but it may well be the position, in relation to some of the houses that have been referred to, that they go across for a year or two in order to get some capital.

That has been a movement in the west of Ireland as long as I know the west and for generations past. With regard to this talk of closing up houses, I should like some Deputies to have the experience I have, as Minister for Lands, with people looking for land. There is still strongly ingrained in our people a desire for land and for more land. That is all to the good. To suggest that people are running away from the land is completely untrue and completely unrealistic. Where any land is being divided or even where there is a possibility of getting land into the Land Commission machine for division, the local people go to all extremes to get land.

Mr. Dillon

At half price.

Mr. Moran

They urge the Land Commission, day in and day out, to get more land for the relief of congestion in these areas. Far from the picture being that the people want to run away from the land, the opposite is the truth. It is quite true that on a small farm there is room for only one son and possibly one daughter. If there is a larger family the remainder must go somewhere. To suggest that our people are running away from the land is not in accordance with the facts.

Deputy Dillon suggested that one of the biggest problems on the small farm is that the farmer's income had been drastically reduced over the past three years. I want completely to refute that allegation. As regards the movement in prices, the agricultural price index number has risen, though slowly, from 100 in 1953 to 102.5 in 1958. Over the same period, the price index number for certain farm materials purchased by farmers—foodstuffs, fertilisers and seeds—has fallen from 100 to approximately 97.2. The indications are that there will be a further fall in 1959-60 due to the effect of the Government subsidy on fertilisers. Therefore, the index number for prices received and the index number for prices paid by farmers for their principal requisites have been moving favourably.

Again, in the congested districts, the farmers in the north and east derive the major portion of their income from the sale of cattle and sheep. Thirty-four per cent. of the cattle of this country are located in the congested districts and approximately 50 per cent. of the sheep of the country are located in these districts. Cattle account for over 30 per cent. of the farm income in these areas and sheep another 5 per cent. The prices of cattle have been generally good in recent years.

Mr. Dillon

What is that?

Mr. Moran

The prices of cattle have been generally good in recent years——

Mr. Dillon

They fell £10 per head last month.

Mr. Moran

——with the exception of the fluctuations we had over the past 12 months. As far as that is concerned, the prospects for the future, particularly in regard to cattle, are good, especially following the recent trade agreement with Great Britain under which the cattle differential was abolished in the case of attested cattle. The Government are trying to go as far as they can——

Mr. Blowick

Did the Minister attend any fairs inside the past 18 months or does he meet anyone coming from a fair?

Mr. Moran

I attended as many fairs in my time as the Deputy. I know as much about the western economy as the Deputy does or any Deputy on the other side of the House.

Mr. Blowick

The Minister does not seem to, judging by his talk.

Mr. Moran

Let me revert to the argument of Deputy Oliver Flanagan who wants everybody to get land and who wants the size of the farm increased to 45 acres. He must not have read what his colleague, Deputy Dillon, had to say on this subject a few years ago. At all events, I should like to quote from an independent source for the delectation of Deputy Dillon. It is an article by Mr. J.F. Keane, B. Agr. Sc., about a 22½ acre holding at Foxfort, Bansha, Co. Tipperary, owned by a Mr. William Morrissey. The article appeared in the Irish Farmers' Journal of the 9th May, 1959.

Mr. Dillon

That is the area where we started the parish plan.

Mr. Moran

I do not know whether Deputy Dillon wants to replace the late Canon Hayes or not. That is his business.

Mr. Dillon

We started the parish plan in Bansha.

Mr. Moran

In this article the author points out that on this 22½ acre farm the output was £1,445 from the 22½ acres. The article goes on to state:—

What is the minimum size farm that could be classed as an economic holding? There are wide and varied views, indeed, on this question.

The other evening in South Tipperary at a farm demonstration we saw how a 22½ acre dairy farmer, William Morrissey, of Foxfort, is winning a very good living from his small acreage. As a matter of fact, he has a gross output of £1,445— or over £62 an acre—and that is on a very ordinary balanced farm system at that. I say the system is ordinary, but the management is excellent.

That is from an independent source. There is no sign in that of the vast decline in the small farmer's income about which Deputy Dillon was so eloquent when speaking here the other day.

Mr. Corish

What does that prove— that 22½ acres are enough for anyone?

Mr. Moran

It proves that it is not so much a question of the acres as how they are worked. It proves that on 22½ acres, through good management, this man can get a gross output of £62 per acre. While I am on this, let me reiterate what Deputy Dillon said—that the vast majority of our competitors in Denmark and in the Netherlands are on farms under 25 acres. I dealt more extensively with that matter in an article in the N.F.A. Year Book and I do not want to go over the same ground now. In the last year the Deputies on the opposite side were in office the total number of males in farmwork throughout the country dropped by almost 11,000 men. The latest corresponding figure for 1958-59 was just over 6,000, so that is a change in the picture which Deputy Dillon would ask us to believe.

Certainly, under this Government the drift from the land has been halved compared with what it was when Deputy Dillon and Deputy Blowick left office. The work of the Land Commission is contributing substantially to this improvement. I want to give the House some percentages because of the allegation by Deputy Blowick that according to my tame opening speech, as he calls it, much more was done by the inter-Party Government, as far as land acquisition and division was concerned, than was done since.

Mr. T. Lynch

It is not important.

Mr. Moran

These are the figures and they will speak for themselves. In comparison with the last year of the inter-Party Government the total acreage resettled by the Land Commission last year is up by 28 per cent. The number of migrations is up by 26 per cent. The number of allottees is up by 55 per cent. and improvement works expenditure is up by 19 per cent.

Mr. Blowick

All on land which the inter-Party Government left you.

Mr. Moran

I would ask Deputy Blowick to be very careful about these allegations or I shall come back to the time when the cold wind of economic stress created by his Government came to play on Deputy Sweetman and when Deputy Sweetman ordered Deputy Blowick to stop any further purchases under the 1950 Land Act and ordered Deputy Blowick to cut down the expenditure on the improvements grants. That is on the record.

Mr. Blowick

He did not. We had more land——

Mr. Moran

These substantial increases disprove Deputy Blowick's claim that his Government did as much for the relief of congestion as is now being done. I want to announce to the House now that this very year the Government are making available to me, as Minister for Lands, an extra £250,000 for the further acquisition of land for the relief of congestion. The limit that there was of £500,000 of land bonds is now increased by the Government to £750,000 to deal with the job. Deputy Blowick can put that in his pipe and smoke it when he talks about what is being done to deal with the problem of congestion.

Sir Anthony Esmonde

I hope the Minister will not be as slow about taking it over as he has been up to this.

Mr. Moran

Taking over what?

Sir Anthony Esmonde

The land.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister should be allowed to make his speech without interruption.

Mr. Corish

In all fairness, he will want much more money to compete with the foreigners who are buying land.

Mr. Moran

I find it hard to understand the Deputy. From the series of questions he addressed to me from time to time he certainly does not want the Forestry Department to get any land.

Mr. Corish

You seem to feel that way about most Wexford Deputies.

Mr. Moran

About one Deputy in particular.

Mr. Blowick

Would the Minister mind telling me if that quarter of a million is in Land Bonds for the purchase of land?

Mr. Moran

Yes.

Mr. Blowick

Please God we shall all be here this time next year.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Perhaps the Minister will be allowed to conclude his speech.

Mr. Moran

I know that the truth in this matter is bitter to Deputy Dillon and to Deputy Blowick. I know that it came as a shock to Deputy Blowick to know that I could succeed in getting an extra £250,000 from the Government to relieve congestion in the west. That was the highest amount of money ever made available in any one year by any one Government for the acquisition of land.

Mr. Blowick

This is a great piece of bluff.

Mr. Moran

The people were used to a lot of bluff from the Deputy but these are facts, economic facts, which he will find it very difficult to swallow.

Mr. Blowick

This is a little trick which the Minister has thought up.

Mr. Moran

I would advise Deputy Blowick to accept this, that when this Government talk of millions or quarter millions they will provide it and it is no bluff. We put up the money to do the job and we do not try to bluff the people like the Deputy's Government did when nobody could get a grant for houses, when a manager could not write a cheque for more than £12, when the Deputy was "bust", his Government was "bust", his Minister for Finance was "bust" and the country was very nearly "bust". The people decided that issue and decided to get out of the financial morass created by the Deputy and his colleagues when they were in office.

As far as the points made by Deputy Jones are concerned, it is true that there is a regulation limiting the distance at which land can be acquired to increase a holding. The Land Commission found in practice that when they gave additional land two or three miles away from the original holding it was usually unworked and was let. The regulation of trying to keep additional land within one mile of a man's holding is a reasonable one. Experience down through the years with the other method, by which they could go up to three miles for additional land, proved very unsatisfactory. The more compact a holding is the easier it is to work it. While there is no statutory authority for this limit of one mile, I think it is a reasonable regulation and should be adhered to.

I share the concern of the Deputies who express some misgivings about the delay in the division of land. All I want to say, and I say it for the benefit of people who are not familiar with the job that has to be done, is that it occurs largely in connection with rearrangements and in nine cases out of ten the delay is solely due to the lack of co-operation by the people concerned. A man possibly has to give up a field in the middle of another man's holding and get another acre somewhere else. Unless you can get the agreement of the people to do that, it is often a very difficult task. Unless they get the agreement of the people there is nothing the Land Commission can do. Sometimes they have to leave it for a number of years and sometimes they try to solve it by trying to get more migrants out of the place.

I should also like to say that it is not always easy to get some people to migrate. You get a number who are anxious to go but in nearly all the rearrangement schemes there are one, two or three people who must be got out before the job can be done. Some of these men are well on in years and would like to be buried with their own people, as they say in the west of Ireland. They would not like to move to holdings up the country. In such cases there might be some prospect of limited local migration but you will not get some of the people to migrate out of the congested districts for the asking.

It is a very complex and difficult problem which inevitably leads to delay if there is not co-operation between the people concerned. Might I make an appeal to these people in whose areas these schemes are in progress and are being held up for lack of co-operation? The Land Commission are most anxious to get on with the job and they cannot do it without co-operation on the part of those concerned. The work is for the benefit of these people themselves and they should realise the advantages of having a compact workable holding instead of the scattered stretches some of them have at present.

Regarding the points made about the type of Land Commission house now being built, I should like to say that in some of the new houses water is laid on and water has been provided for them. It should be known to Deputies that, when they speak of elaborate houses and elaborate facilities, it is a very expensive business. The present cost of settling an ordinary migrant runs from £3,500 to £4,000 a man. I know that it is a very necessary social work, leaving out the economic side of it altogether, but there are limits beyond which we cannot go in providing very elaborate houses and in providing all the amenities that we should like them to get.

The individual who is shifted into one of these new houses knows that he has got a very substantial grant from the State. There is a very substantial loss on resale in all these matters and I think that we have come to the time when there is a duty on some of those people to do a little for themselves. We must try to cater for as many as possible and the higher these costings go, the fewer the people that can be provided for, in the relief of the land slums.

I do not think there are any other substantial points to which I need refer. I am grateful to the House for the different suggestions made and these will be examined and considered by me.

Mr. Dillon

I should like to ask the Minister a factual question the answer to which he may not have at hand. Is there any rundale remaining outside the Province of Connacht?

Mr. Moran

Not to my knowledge. There would be very little outside the Province of Connacht. I am sure it is insignificant.

Mr. Dillon

There was some in the Rosses, was there not?

Mr. Moran

There was but as far as I know any rundale left outside Connacht is now insignificant.

Vote put and agreed to.