I was dealing on the last night with the approach that should be made to the land problem generally, particularly in view of our proposed entry into the Common Market. I was pointing out generally to the House that land is a scarce commodity in this country and how necessary it is for us now to reassess our whole approach to the problem.
Before I go on to one or two generalities to conclude the debate, I want to deal briefly with some of the points made by Deputies in the course of the discussion. Deputy Tully complained of delay in allotting the Langford estate which he alleges is in hand since 1953, and he said the Roscrea Meat Company estate is in hand since 1957. He alleged that the Land Commission are letting the lands on the 11-months' system to make money. The Langford estate was all allotted, except 68 acres which are not all arable—they are a remnant which has been left over. The Roscrea estate was borrowed from the Land Commission by the Department of Agriculture for at least one year for TB purposes, to deal with reactors, and that caused part of the delay.
That estate was mainly intended for over-standard holdings for large migrants from the congested areas. In that connection I should state that it has been the policy, and I think a sound policy, for the Land Commission, where they can get them to go, to take out large migrants from the congested areas. That type of migrant is more used to dealing with the large type of farm than the general run of the small congested people. Where we can get one of these large migrants from the west to come up, it is far better economics for the Land Commission and the State to have only one man to deal with by exchange from perhaps 150 acres in the West to 120 acres or a similar acreage in the eastern part. There is not the very high expenditure that is incurred by taking up five migrants instead of one. Deputies in the main will agree that is a better type of practice, generally speaking. In connection with the Roscrea estate, many over-standard migrants refused to take holdings there but I am glad to say it is now in course for distribution probably to the type of migrants for whom it was intended.
I want to deny categorically that the Land Commission let land for the purpose of making money as has been alleged and as is generally believed. In fact, from the point of view of the State, the amount of revenue derived by the Land Commission from the letting of land is generally the comparatively small figure of approximately £8,000 a year, that is, taking the expense of the stocktakers and so on into account.
