Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 23 Mar 1971

Vol. 252 No. 7

Private Members' Business. - Land Commission Policy: Motion.

Mr. Tully

I move:

"That Dáil Éireann approves of a policy to be carried out by the Land Commission which will ensure that in the allocation of land, the claims of local deserving applicants should be satisfied, before persons from outside areas are considered."

The reason for putting down this motion is that the Land Commission, which was set up long before the founding of this State for the purpose of doing two things: (1) vesting unvested holdings; and (2) relieving a certain amount of congestion in certain areas has developed over the years into a tremendous-sized organisation, and problems naturally have arisen over the working of the Land Commission and particularly in regard to the acquisition and division of land.

Over the years the Land Commission has had introduced in this House by various Ministers for Lands a number of different Land Acts. These Land Acts were introduced for the purpose, or were supposed to be for the purpose, of dealing in a fairer way than had previously been the case, with the acquisition and division of land. However, one often has reservations about whether or not the net result of the new Bill passing through the House is an improvement on what went before; and when we come to the way in which certain persons in this country are dealt with in regard to land division, the question mark is very big indeed.

Some years ago the Land Commission officials, I suppose for their own convenience, introduced a system whereby a landless man within half a mile of an estate to be divided, or an uneconomic holder within a mile of such an estate, could be considered for portion of that estate. Having introduced it, as far as I am aware of their own accord, and it not having the force of law—they relied merely on the fact of its having been introduced and, shall I say, getting away with it—the Land Commission officials began to treat it as the "Bible", the rule of thumb which applied to all land division. The result is when an estate is being divided there may be a number of people living around the estate who expect that they will benefit. In many cases they are people who have taken land for crops from the previous owner; in some cases they have worked on and off on the estate over the years. When the Land Commission come to divide the estate they strictly apply their rule of thumb and exclude anybody who is an uneconomic holder living over a mile away and they rule out anybody who is a landless man over half a mile by road from the estate.

On one occasion the Minister's predecessor in answer to a question from me in the House as to whether or not the half mile or mile referred to was by road or by land gave what he considered to be a truthful answer when he said it referred to the nearest point whether by road or otherwise. The Land Commission officials have refused to accept that ruling and have strictly adhered to the ruling that it must be half a mile or a mile by road. Therefore one can find somebody living within 100 yards of an estate but if the road does not run by them down to the estate but takes a roundabout route which leaves that person outside the limit laid down by the officials, he is out of luck and cannot be considered.

This has caused a great deal of annoyance and over the last couple of years has resulted in the formation in areas where land has been divided of various organisations with the object of putting pressure on the Land Commission to allocate the land to the people concerned and not to outsiders.

Who is an outsider? If the Land Commission say that a man who lives one mile and 100 yards from the estate and who in fact has been trying to rear a family on a small farm is not entitled to an addition to that farm when the estate is being divided, surely it is unreasonable that a man who may never have engaged in farming at all, who may be in possession of as small a holding as half an acre or of a couple of hundred acres of bog rated at 2d an acre, as has occurred in some cases, can be brought 100 or 150 miles and made the vested owner of such a holding while the people living beside the estate are ruled out?

On more than one occasion when I have made statements like this, the Minister here and his predecessor have accused me of being anti-migrant and of insulting their former colleagues from the West of Ireland who have been brought over to Meath and other places. Nothing could be further from the truth. As they and their officials must know, when migrants come into County Meath and are given holdings —I do not think there is another place in the world where the same thing could occur—these people become as the people who have been living there all their lives and are accepted as such More than that, they themselves within a very short period consider themselves as local and come to me and possibly to Deputy Bruton, Deputy Hilliard and people like us to complain about the unfairness of bringing other people from outside the area and giving them portions of land which they require in order to live.

The Minister as recently as a week ago objected to a statement I made here about migrants some of whom I said came to Meath, got farms and moved away leaving a house idle and perhaps selling the land. He said it just could not happen; migrants did not do that—or words to that effect. I had a question down which unfortunately was not reached. I was hoping the Minister would reach it before this debate took place because I was asking were there any records kept.

Minister for Lands (Mr. S. Flanagan)

What could not happen—that they could sell the land?

Mr. Tully

No, but that it did not happen.

Mr. S. Flanagan

I never said that.

Mr. Tully

All right. The Minister became very angry.

Mr. S. Flanagan

I saw the reference "It could not happen" but I do not think that was a full——

Mr. Tully

That is what the Minister said anyway.

Mr. S. Flanagan

I think it was an answer to something that did not appear in the official record.

Mr. Tully

It was in answer to something I said. However, perhaps the Minister did not mean that. I have before me a letter I received today from a person who is complaining about a farm at Cullentra, which is in the Longwood area of County Meath. This is a case of a man who got a house and farm some time ago. Since then he has died and his wife has shut up the house and gone to live in England but she has set the land. This land had been in the possession of those people for only a few years. The house, as a result of being closed up, is deteriorating. Why should this be allowed to happen while men who have no holdings but who require land for stock have to pay as much as £300 per year for grass on the 11-month system?

I am sure the Minister can understand the amount of discontent that practices of this nature can cause to people who have spent all their lives in an area, who are trying to eke out an existence on a small holding, who may be given six or seven acres while somebody brought in from outside is given 35 to 40 acres but later moves to England and sets the land.

That is one instance but there was another instance where a farm was put up for sale. The Land Commission were asked if they would be prepared to buy this farm, adjoining which were two people whose holdings were uneconomic. These people would have been very glad to have got that farm and, although the rent would have been high, they would have been prepared to pay it. However, what happened was that two speculators from outside were allowed to buy the farm. One of them bought it as a park for cattle he would be bringing to fairs a few miles away. The other man was the local veterinary surgeon. Perhaps he might stable a horse or two on it. In any case, they bought the land that was required by other people who wished to make a living from it.

Recently, Deputies Hilliard, Bruton and I accompanied a deputation to the Minister in connection with the Kolln estate. That deputation represented 30 or 40 people who were living within a few miles of the estate and who were anxious to obtain a portion of the land. Some of them had cattle for which they were forced to rent land and some of this rented land was part of the Kolln estate. These were the type of people to whom the Minister has referred time and again as excellent people. In my part of the country they would be referred to as "snug" people. Some of them take up employment but put part of what they earn into building up their holdings so that they will have something for their children. However, this land was divided in a way that appeared to those of us who knew the area to be stupid. As a result of the deputation I understand that some of the people concerned were accommodated, but others were not. They were ruled out, not because they were not entitled to be considered but because they were living more than the half mile or the mile distance which the Commissioners have laid down.

As I have asked time and again, can anybody show me anything in the legislation dealing with land that stipulates that people outside that radius should not be eligible for land? There is no such regulation; it was simply thought of by somebody who considered it to be an easy way out. Of course, it is much easier to deal with a radius of a mile or a half mile, but the result of this is that resentment has turned to anger and into a determination that this must not continue. I do not believe in breaking the law but I see people in the cities and towns organising themselves into various organisations for the purpose of fighting for what they consider to be their rights and certainly I would be the last person to condemn small farmers and landless men for fighting for what they consider to be their right—the right to be given portion of an estate that is being divided.

When the 1965 Act was being put through the House, one of the penal clauses was that which stipulated that a local person who was given land would have to pay a full annuity while a migrant or certain others would have to pay only a half annuity. At the end of the economic war, Fianna Fáil made a great song and dance of being able to announce that annuities were being halved but there was not such a song and dance when the position was being reversed so that certain people would be charged a full annuity. We now have the situation whereby a local man who is given a protion of land may have to pay as much as £20 in rent alone per acre per annum while a man who may be living beside him but who came from outside the area will have to pay only £10. That is not just.

It is not a question of lands not being available, as I can point out from a list I have before me. This information was given by the Minister recently. It will be seen from this list that certain farms have been in the hands of the Land Commission for a very long time. The Land Commission officials have told me time and again —of course, I believe what they tell me because I have no reason to do otherwise and I have no complaints to make in relation to my dealings with them—that they lose money on the farms they have in their possession but which for one reason or another they cannot divide immediately after acquisition or even shortly afterwards.

I quote figures from columns 1816, 1817 and 1818 of the Official Report for the 23rd February, 1971. I should be interested to know why the Booth estate of 42 acres at Baconstown, which was acquired on the 5/6/63 has not been divided. Also, the Daly estate of 231 acres which was taken over shortly after 1963. Also, the following: Kolln, 450 acres, 11/9/64; Curran estate at Loughanstown, 58 acres, 3/12/63; Byrne estate at Curraghtown, 44 acres, 10/9/64. Portion of those and of the four I shall mention now has been allocated. There was the Smith estate at Clonardan of 100 acres which was acquired on the 7/12/64, the Develter estate at Craigs of 15 acres, acquired on the 1/12/64. There is the Austin estate of 62 acres at Balnagon which was acquired on the 14/12/64 and the Plastics estate of 237 acres at Grennanstown which was acquired on the 26/2/65. There was also the Smyth estate at Mellifont. This estate comprises 801 acres and was acquired on the 5/8/65. I do not know why nothing has been done about that. Also, the Smyth estate at Rathmanoo which comprises 143 acres and was taken over on the 31/8/65. I was told that this estate has not been divided because there was some difficulty in deciding how it could be divided in order to ensure that it be used properly, but six years later the position is the same. There is the Jeffers estate of 120 acres at Glassallen, acquired on the 2/11/64; the Naper estate of 77 acres at Loughcrew, most of which has been divided; the Coffey estate of 21 acres at Drissoge acquired on the 16/3/66; the Higgins estate of 34 acres at Baconstown, acquired on the 12/12/66, and so on. Further down the list we see an estate of 208 acres that was acquired on the 24/4/67, 288 acres acquired on the 4/12/67 and many others. The acreages are 109, 174, 29, 152, 136, 192, 81, 282, 76, 77, 124, 20, 28, 45, 66, 23, 69, 197, 52, 101, 66, 34, 27, 240, 212, and 341. That brings us up to the 31st December, 1969.

All these farms in County Meath are in the possession of the Land Commission. Added on are the estates taken in 1970, the O'Malley estate, Allenstown, 28 acres; Chambers estate, Laracer, 251 acres; O'Connell estate, Gibstown Demesne, 30 acres; Carroll estate, Hallstown, 281 acres; Dublin Wine Ltd. estate, Dogstown, 143 acres; Keppel estate, Drewstown Great, 287 acres; Bury estate, Drewstown, 287 acres; FitzSimons estate, Cloncarreel, 55 acres; McGuinness estate, Gibstown, 22 acres; and the Ward estate, Cloghreagh, 28 acres. That brings us to 2nd December, 1970. All this land in County Meath is in the possession of the Land Commission and they tell me they are losing money on land which they hold over any period and that if they let the land they are losing so much on it. Will anyone tell me why it is that, that being so, the land is still held?

There is one reason and it is that the Land Commission have a policy of bringing migrants from the west of Ireland and giving them farms in County Meath and other areas, and they are finding it extremely difficult to persuade such migrants to come over because, while they are asking the local people to pay the full annuity, the migrants are not prepared to pay even half the annuity. They do not consider it good value. I mentioned here before that when they bring a man and his wife and a number of children and put them on to a farm on an estate, many of them have absolutely no idea of how to work that farm. Some of them have a hazy idea of how to work the farms they left and in a very short time they realise that what they were told—and some of them came to me and told me this—that there was plenty of employment available in the area for themselves and their families, is not correct. When they arrive they find that the only employment available is the employment held by the local people and their children. Either their children must emigrate, and sometimes the parents, or the local people must emigrate.

I do not think this is the purpose for which the Land Commission were set up. They are not doing the job they were set up to do. I want to say here and now that the Land Commission must change their policies. They must ensure that people who live within three, four or five miles of an estate that is being divided are considered. It will be found in most cases that they will turn out to be excellent farmers. They know the area. They know the land. They have worked on land. It is very important that people working in agriculture should know the type of land they are working, the type of crops that will grow well on it, where the best market is for their produce and should have all the other knowledge which cannot be given to migrants with the farms.

It is terribly unfair for the Land Commission to start what is, in fact, a civil war between the migrants and the people of the locality. We have now reached the stage where in some areas —and I should like the Minister to comment on this if he thinks I am telling an untruth—land cannot be set because the local people picket the area and picket the auction and say : "This cannot be done." They offer a price which is not acceptable and in some cases the land is allowed lie fallow for 12 months.

In quite a number of cases the Department have been very reasonable and when approaches were made in the proper way they did a deal with the local people and let the land to them. Apparently the position has hardened now and either they take it from the local auctioneer or they do not take it at all. If the local auctioneer is unable to get a bid which suits the Land Commission the land must just lie there. I wonder who the Department of Lands consider they are serving by this sort of attitude. I do not know who decided this. I should very much like to know whether this was a decision by the Minister or the Commissioners or the senior officials of the Department. Who decided that this should be the position?

I honestly believe that the country would be much better off if there were much more co-operation and if, for instance, before a farm was divided the Commissioners got people together instead of saying: "This is your bit. Sign for that." If they do not want to sign for it that is just too bad. I know one man who got a nice little farm on top of a hill. It was cut short a couple of perches from the only river in the area and he was left without water while his neighbour had more water than he wanted. Obviously, somebody looked at the map and decided that was the right thing to do, that he was getting a certain number of acres and that was the way he should get them. In other cases people have been cut off from roads which they could have used. Recently a man told me he got a farm which ran within a couple of perches of a ditch. He said he could fence the ditch himself for £2 10s but the Land Commission decided to give him some land out from the ditch and they had to fence the lot, and God knows what it cost.

There is not enough co-operation between the Land Commission and the applicants for land. The Land Commission must make up their minds that the people in the areas where land is being divided have rights, like everybody else, and that when it comes to the division of land people who live within striking distance of it, people who can use it, are considered and are given portions of land. If they do not use it properly it can be taken from them. That is an easy thing to do. The idea of refusing to give it to them because they are over a set distance away is pure codology.

Over the past 12 or 18 months or two years, there has been quite an uproar particularly from a group who call themselves the National Land League. Many people would like to criticise them and treat them as if they were like the illegal organisations who go around with guns, holding up people, or threatening to shoot them, or robbing banks. They are not. They are a normal decent group of people who claim that they have rights. As long as they stay within the law, as I believe they do, they are entitled to do what they are doing. They picketed a farm which somebody wanted to divide to build houses for migrants. I should like to ask the Minister what he would do if he had a business in his own town and he found that because of the action of a Government body he would be left without the use of that business. I think he would be very angry. These people I am talking about are very angry. The fact that they have got the support of most of the people in the area, including the clergy, proves that their cause is just.

As of now the Land Commission should attempt to make arrangements with the local organisations who have been agitating for land division, many of whom, as a result of their agitation, had farms taken over only to find they were given to people who do not belong to the area at all. The Land Commission have got to make their peace with these people. They are reasonable people. I have proved that it can be done and I think the officials will agree that this is so. The idea must be scrapped that locals must be beside the farms before they can be considered, whereas people from hundreds of miles away can be considered before them. If the Land Commission do that they will find, in a short time, that there will be none of this ill feeling and people looking for land will get what they are entitled to.

Mr. Kavanagh

In seconding this motion I want to make it clear, as my colleague Deputy Tully did, that this is not a case of Deputies from eastern counties trying to deprive people in the West of a living anywhere in the country. We want to make a claim for the people in our constituency who we believe are just as badly off living on the land as those in the western part of the country.

I am sure every Deputy has visited the County of Wicklow, which I represent, at one time or another either on business or pleasure. Because of its proximity to Dublin it is the county most visited by tourists who come to the capital city. Some people might be under the impression, having visited Wicklow, that everybody there is reasonably well off compared with other counties. The eastern portion of the county is the most wealthy side and most of the industry is situated in Bray, Wicklow and Arklow. There is a very good strip of land which runs down the east side and along the southern part of the county. It is somewhat similar to the way the country as a whole is made up, with the better land in the east and the south and the poorer class land in the north and west.

We must have been badly represented when the 1906 Congested Districts Boards were being set up because Wicklow was not included. I do not know who represented Wicklow at that time but certainly he did not make a very good case for Wicklow. Wicklow has some of the most congested and poorest land in Leinster. I make that point to compare Wicklow with the counties from which migrants come to Wicklow. People living and farming in Wicklow are faced with problems which are every bit as difficult as those in Mayo, Galway or other congested areas in the West.

When people from Wicklow approach me about getting land or getting a portion of an estate in Wicklow, I am inclined to compare the problems with which they will be faced, if they are successful, with those of the people who come from outside the county who are successful in getting land. The first thing that strikes me is this business of the double annuity structure which is applied to locals who are successful in their applications. If the annuity of a local is £400 a migrant will pay £200 for the same area of land. The ability to pay is not taken into account and neither is the background of the individuals concerned. They both have the same capacity for earning because they hold equal portions of land, but one is expected to pay exactly double the other because of the application of the Act in the county.

Deputy Tully has mentioned the application of the mile and half mile limit. I understood this was part of an Act which said that local applicants had to be within a mile of the estate, if they were smallholders, and within half a mile, if they were landless men or cottiers. This perimeter is applied to locals in Wicklow as it is to locals in Meath and other counties and it has been used to deprive many a man of a portion of land to which he was qualified in every other respect. The classic anomaly was quoted during the debate on the Department of Lands by Deputy L'Estrange. A bachelor was given a piece of land because he was within a mile while a married man with six children was not given it because he was 100 yards outside the limit. This type of application of the mile and half mile limit is ludicrous in our eyes. If it is not part of the Act, there should be much more elasticity in the application of it so that people who are in close proximity to the estates being divided can be included. Deputy Tully has suggested that a limit of three, four or five miles would not unduly stretch the distance a farmer would have to travel if he was successful in his application for land. The days of the horse and cart are gone in most areas and farmers can be seen using tractors in every county in order to get from place to place. This type of conveyance can bring the limits of men in respect of land within a wider circumference than that which applied when the mile limit was first put into effect.

There are a number of farms in the hands of the Land Commission awaiting division. The total acreage in Wicklow is in excess of 2,000 acres. In many cases this land has been rented out and, like Deputy Tully in regard to Meath, I am at a loss to understand why there should be a deficit in the renting of lands in Wicklow. Recently, one portion of land was rented in Wicklow at the rate of £30 per acre. The renting of land is a bad thing from many points of view. If the Land Commission are in receipt of £30 per acre and if there is a deficit from other counties, it is unlikely they will be in a rush to divide the better and more lucrative holdings and estates. This is apparently the reason why some estates in my county have not been divided for four, five and six years. I can point to one estate not too far from me where the Land Commission came into ownership of a property—it was the Farrell estate near Rathnew—and there was a fine house and good outbuildings, with piped water to both; the condition of the estate today would almost make one weep. A man who rents land opposite it visited it recently and he told me the galvanised iron has been removed from the sheds, the windows are broken, the interior of the house has been ransacked, piping and fittings have been torn out and the whole place is derelict. Anybody who sees this happening, a viable farm which was in top-class condition when taken over, must feel aggrieved. The correct thing for the Land Commission to do would be either to set the land on a long-term basis or keep it in proper condition. The house should be given to people in the area in need of housing to prevent this kind of vandalism. This is not an isolated incident. It must be remembered that land suffers if it is neglected. The Minister has admitted that this does happen. Those who rent land do not have the same interest in it because there is always the feeling that someone else may come along next year and offer a higher price. For that reason those who rent will not keep the land in good heart and the land suffers. Indeed, everybody suffers when land is allowed to remain undivided. The person who would like to rent the land under the conacre system suffers. The migrant or the local smallholder who is looking for land suffers. Above all, the land suffers.

To suggest there is no congestion in Wicklow is ridiculous. Investigations were made recently into the Naughton estate near Dunlavin. I understand prospective migrants have visited the estate. I have here a circular from the Dunlavin Smallholders Association; 32 smallholders have added their names to the circular which says that they are anxious to be considered for portion of this land. I assume these 32 are within the mile radius and if all 32 have some portion of land that shows the congestion that exists on the western side of the county. The claims of many of those on the list— I do not say all because I am not familiar with all of them—are as genuine as are the claims of anybody in any part of the country. It is for that reason I have added my name to this motion.

In his speech on the Estimate for 1969 the Minister said that 9,300 acres of land had been sold to non-nationals in two years—I take it he meant the two previous years—with the consent of the Land Commission. He suggested that 5,000 acres of that land would not have been attractive to Irish purchasers. I wonder how many of these acres could have been divided amongst people from the west, thereby providing them with viable holdings. Not all the 9,300 acres could have been unattractive, or so unattractive that it would not have been as good as some of the land being divided currently in Wicklow. The Minister admits that at least 4,300 acres were attractive. The policy of the Land Commission in regard to the sale of this type of land should be clearly stated remembering the demand there is in every county for land.

In the case of the Love estate in Ahascragh 200 acres were sold to one individual. I am sure that 200 acres would have made economic holdings for several farmers in that area, thereby saving them from being uprooted and transferred to the eastern part of the country. I do not think the Minister has told us why that estate was sold to one individual. That estate could have been divided amongst smallholders in the area.

I should not like to give the impression that non-nationals are the only people to buy land. There is a good deal of native speculation in land. Wicklow, being in close proximity to Dublin, suffers more from this abuse than do other parts of the country. It is within easy reach of the industries and businesses for the new breed of gentlemen farmers in and around the city of Dublin. The Minister should keep an eye on this situation. This kind of speculation is rampant in Wicklow, Kildare and Meath.

The Minister has not been afraid to come in here and give the House his own ideas. In the debate on his Estimate in 1969 he made several worthwhile suggestions. His suggestion with regard to afforestation received a great deal of publicity. Another suggestion he made was part-time farming in the west and a reversal of the role of the Land Commission to enable the provision of industry in the west in order to allow farmers and their families to have part-time occupations whilst continuing farming on their uneconomic holdings. This was a worthwhile suggestion. It may have gone against the thinking set down in the Buchanan and other reports and it may also go against the thinking in the Mansholt Plan.

Mr. Bruton

No.

Mr. Kavanagh

I think so, from my reading of a recent Mansholt Plan survey, which would mean that farms would have to become larger rather than remain small, that there would have to be a denuding of the population on the land in order to make the Mansholt ideas viable. What the Minister was suggesting was not Mansholt in any shape or form. On that occasion he went so far as to say that. In the Official Report for 20th November, 1969, at column 1415, when he was talking about Deputy L'Estrange, he said :

It took him a while to come around to the logic of his own argument but I think he accepts, as I do, that it is unthinkable that we should develop in this country anything on the lines of a Mansholt Plan.

In putting forward his proposal for part-time farmers he introduced it with that statement. He went on to say :

I consider it largely irrelevant what an economic holding of land is. It may be 60 acres or 70 acres or it may be more. Candidly I do not think it has any relevance to the west of Ireland in particular, and instead of setting out to give economic holdings to people we should, instead, try to set up a system of part-time farming through which we would have a rapid increase in industrial employment and in employment in forestry and we should leave as many of our people as possible on their small 20-acre farms.

An Ceann Comhairle

Perhaps the Deputy would give the reference?

Mr. Kavanagh

I was quoting again from the same volume of the Official Report, for 20th November, 1969, column 1416. The Minister made a worthwhile suggestion and indicated that he was anxious to have a reversal of the Land Commission policy which has been followed for many years. In doing so he was coming around to the idea of what we have in this motion, to try to keep people in their own areas, to try to provide employment where the people are rather than move them to some other place. If people move from the west to the east the people in the east, in Meath and Wicklow, who cannot get this land cannot move to the west and instead they have to move somewhere else. Unfortunately too often it has been to England or America or to Australia where they have to turn to some other trade or occupation. I welcome the Minister's change of ideas which I do not think has been debated since. As I said, this runs somewhat counter to the Buchanan Plan because the basis of that plan was to centre industrial complexes in a particular area or areas. Finally, I should like to quote the Minister again from the same debate at column 1417 where he was detailing how the west could be kept populated. He said :

In order to restore the vitality that is needed to be restored in certain parts of the west of Ireland we should change our policy from one of trying to give everybody an economic holding to one of trying to provide suitable employment in industry or forestry and leave our people with their small farms.

I wholeheartedly agree with that. This applies equally to my county as to any part of the west. The only way to provide employment in Wicklow, for instance, is to give them employment on the land and consider them for estates which are being divided, whether they are within the mile limit or not. I commend this motion to the House and it should be adopted for the Land Commission's future direction.

Mr. L'Estrange

The motion is somewhat vague but it is worth discussing. It does not say whether the limit should be a mile, two miles, three miles, six miles or even ten miles. I do not believe in the mile limit. As I have stated on numerous occasions, I know of a farm which was divided and a bachelor of 60 and a few other bachelors in the 50 years bracket received land while two young married men, one with a family of four and the other with five, were not considered because they were 100 or 200 yards outside the limit. That is unfair and unjust. The mile limit is undoubtedly completely outdated. The majority of farmers have tractors and cars and they can farm efficiently land which is two, three or four miles away. I am in favour of the mile limit being abolished. The Land Commission should give the land to young, hardworking farmers, certainly to people who would make the best possible use of it. Where there are young married farmers with families, even if they are 100 or 200 yards outside the limit, they are more entitled to land than men who are 60 years of age living inside the limit.

All parties here stand for the maximum number of farmers living on the land and earning as good a living as other sections of the community. All of us would like to see the farming community having parity with urban sections. There is no aspect of national life on which a clear, long-term statement of Government policy is more urgently needed than in regard to the land. The failure by successive Governments and by successive Fianna Fáil Governments to formulate a long-term plan for the people on the land has, more than any other single factor, been responsible for our failure adequately to deal with the nation's chronic social and economic problems.

Mr. S. Flanagan

There was no failure on the part of the other Government?

Mr. L'Estrange

I said other Governments. Yes, I said that. And Fianna Fáil Governments. I want to be quite fair. I said failure on the part of successive Governments and, indeed, Fianna Fáil Governments.

Mr. Tully

I had a similar motion down during the period of office of the last inter-Party Government.

Mr. L'Estrange

In any case, we have failed to arrest the chronic social and economic problems, to arrest the social and economic disintegration of large areas of this country and especially the west.

The Minister has the responsibility of dealing as fairly as he can with farmers and with land problems. The Proclamation of 1916 speaks about cherishing all the children of the nation equally. We on all sides of the House accept that the people of the west are all Irishmen and we do not want to see another Border in this country. At one time they were sent to hell or to Connaught. I want to say this for the Minister, that he certainly seems to have an excellent plan. He mentioned it here in the House and I mentioned it briefly in my opening remarks. The Minister also mentioned it at the Fianna Fáil Ard-Fheis. His plan, if implemented, would have far-reaching consequences. It would be of tremendous benefit to the country if the people of the west who have small holdings could be given part-time employment in industry, tourism and forestry. It would be unfair to give effect to this motion until such time as that plan was in hand. However, if the two things could operate at the same time the whole country would benefit.

The last speaker referred to the Mansholt Plan. This is certainly in keeping with EEC policy irrespective of what Mansholt may have stated or even is stating at the present time. As far as I know from reading the plan, the idea is to protect the poorer regions of the countries that are in the EEC, to make the people in those areas more prosperous and to raise their standard of living. Somebody who was recently in Ireland and whose name I have forgotten spoke about this very problem of regions and expressed the hope that we would not do in Ireland what had been done in Italy. In Italy they took the people out of the poorer areas and brought them long distances to industries. What the EEC intend to do now is to try to bring these small industries to the villages. Our villages and small towns are dying. What is needed is that the people in our towns would have small rural industries within an eight to ten-mile region, within cycling distance, so that they could work two or three days if necessary on their small farms as well as having part-time employment in those industries. That would be an ideal solution for this country. The dole has done a lot of harm, although certain people need it. I know a farmer whose mother wanted to give him a bit of land. He said: "For goodness' sake do not give it to me because it would put me over the valuation limit and I would not get the dole. Give it to my brother."

An Ceann Comhairle

I wonder would this arise on Deputy Tully's motion.

Mr. L'Estrange

I am making the point that in an undeveloped country like ours work should be available for these people, because so much work needs to be done in drainage, afforestation and so on. As far as rural Ireland is concerned the work of this Department is of major importance. In this House we devote much time to the discussion of agriculture, the need for increased production and possible returns for our farmers. If the holdings are uneconomic and if they are insufficient to give the owner a reasonable living, then no matter how good the agricultural policy may be it is of no avail.

The people are still leaving the land. I have figures here: in 1955 there were 378,676 holdings; in 1966 there were 280,000 holdings, a reduction of 98,676. The number of males engaged in farming has dropped by 127,000 during this period. In my own county of Westmeath, out of 6,935 holdings, 3,199 are under 30 acres. At one time 20 acres was considered to be a viable farm. From time to time it increased from 30 to 50 acres; now we realise it would take almost 70 acres of wellfarmed land to make a viable holding, to give the man and his family working on that farm as good a standard of living as other sections of our community have. However, the Minister cannot wave a magic wand and provide land that is not there. In County Longford, out of 5,645 agricultural holdings, 3,163 are under 30 acres. Again, there is the problem of where the land would come from to make these holdings viable.

Previous speakers referred to speculators. Certainly there will be no land for anybody, particularly in the midlands, if speculators are allowed to continue buying up land as they are doing at the present time. Land has become dear. When the Land Commission purchases land the annuity they have to place on the land makes it too dear for potential owners. I know one farm beside me to which the Land Commission have brought at least ten families from the west within the last year and they have all refused it. While it has a lovely house and beautiful outoffices, the land, according to these people, is too dear.

At the same time there are speculators, local veterinary surgeons, business people, doctors and people who have other ways of earning their livelihood buying up this land. It is definitely creating a problem. In my county there is an organisation known as the Land League who are agitating. I have never advised anyone to break the law and any advice I have given to these people has been within the law. The majority of property owners know that if the law is broken and there is a further drift to violence they and their neighbours have to pay for it. Perhaps there is very little that can be done but this is a problem that is affecting many small farmers in the area. A man may go to his bank manager when 20 or 30 acres of land adjoining his holding are put on the market and he may make arrangements to buy the land but he may find that the land will be bought by a local solicitor who purchases it on trust for somebody else. Afterwards he may discover that it was bought by a doctor, a veterinary surgeon or a businessman. This practice is unfair to these smallholders. The Department should face up to the situation.

Another factor which militates against many farmers in the midlands is the matter of the double annuity. Deputy Tully has spoken on this question. Again, it is both unfair and unjust that this practice should be operated. It imposes a very serious hardship on farmers who are given land outside of the congested areas. Certain counties have been designated as congested areas fros as far back as 1907. Farmers from those areas can get land in the midlands and since the enacting of the 1964 Act they can still have the land at the half annuity rate while farmers living beside them and who are locals must pay the full annuity. This amounts to a rack rent on newly-divided land. Some neighbours of mine are paying £17 or £18 and even more and this imposes a real hardship and, in some cases, it is an unbearable burden on small farmers in the midlands, especially those who have large families. Many of these farmers are anxious to improve their holdings and to acquire a little extra land so that their holdings would be viable but they are unable to do so because of what I call this rack rent, while they are rearing their families.

Last year the Minister promised to look into this matter. So far, nothing has been done about it. There are parts of Longford, Cavan and Westmeath and, indeed, parts of Monaghan, where the land is of a much inferior quality than the land in Roscommon or Galway or other congested areas. In spite of this, however, one may find the case of two farmers on adjoining holdings, where one is from Westmeath and gets 20 acres of land for which he may have to pay £400 in rent, while his neighbour, if he happens to come from a congested area, would have the land for a rent of about £200. Last year, too, I suggested that the Minister might see his way to extend the years of payment. I am aware that, when certain farmers refused to take land at the price at which it was originally offered, the Minister afterwards reduced the price. Land that may be offered originally at £300 might be purchased for £220 or £230 after a farmer had put up a fight.

The question of land division has been raised already. I agree with the Deputy who said that land is kept in the hands of the Land Commission for far too long a period, sometimes for six years. Last year the Minister promised that he would endeavour to speed up land division by the Commission. I do not know whether he has succeeded but figures supplied to me last year by the Minister for Lands show that, out of the 51,000 acres in the possession of the Land Commission, 27,000 acres of this land had been in their possession for two years and the remaining 24,000 acres had been held by them for periods of four, five or six years. In spite of what I would describe as a rack rent, people in the midlands are crying out for land. The Minister and his Department have a very important part to play in preserving a viable rural community and in the provision of a better standard of living for small farmers. I am including farmers in all parts of the country in that category. It is the aim of all of us here that the greatest possible number of people should be able to live on viable units and to see that those units are established throughout the country.

I agree fully with the Minister that there is a problem in so far as the western seaboard is concerned. Certainly, there is a problem in Counties Mayo, Leitrim, Donegal and Galway. It is not the fault of those people that they must try to live on small and infertile holdings. I suppose they were hunted at one time to hell or to Connaught. Any Minister must have a duty to those people who have a long and rugged history, the majority of whom make the most of what limited opportunities they have. Recently, however, the tide seems to be turning against them and they are leaving those uneconomic holdings. Any of these people who have come to the midlands have been welcomed into the various areas. I do not think any of us here has ever objected to them. For most of them, the struggle is difficult, but they integrate very well with the local communities. However, some of those who got holdings of 25 or 30 acres found that, in order to be able to maintain their wives and families, they had to go to England to work. Others had difficulty in so far as they had been used to a different type of livelihood— for instance, fishing—and did not fully understand how to manage the land of the midlands properly. We all know that the land of the midlands differs greatly from the land of the west. There is a different type of farming. The Minister's programme is a good one. He wants to try to bring small industries to the west and to keep those people living on their own small holdings. While the policy or the plan which the Minister spoke about last year seems to be admirable, it does not seem to be getting full backing from the Government. That is a pity.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy must relate this to the motion.

Mr. L'Estrange

I intend to do that. It would be unfair to do what we are proposing in this motion unless the Minister is also prepared to put that plan into operation. As I said earlier, we realise that it is the Minister's duty to cherish all the children of the nation equally. He has responsibility for the farmers of the west just as he has responsibility for the farmers of the midlands. It should be his aim and object to see that as many as possible of them earn a decent living in their own country. It would be unfair for me as a man coming from the midlands to advocate that nobody should be brought from the west of Ireland to the midlands unless there was some other plan for the farmers of the west. I should not like to advocate that. That is why I claim that the Minister's plan should get full backing from the Government. If it was brought before the House I would say it would get the full backing of the House. If it were put into operation at the same time, I would certainly be in favour of the motion that the Land Commission should ensure that in the allocation of land the claims of local and deserving applicants should be satisfied before persons from outside areas are considered.

At the moment the first priority in allocating land is for people who lose their employment on the land. The second is for those inside the one mile radius. I have already said that that mile radius should go. In Meath and Westmeath there are many farmers' sons who showed initiative in their youth. They started to deal in cattle when they had to attend fairs at 3, 4 or 5 o'clock in the morning. They worked for 70 or 80 hours a week. They went down to the west and bought calves and cattle. They got a bit of money together and they took land on the 11 months system.

Mr. Tully

Conacre farmers we call them.

Mr. L'Estrange

They were farmers' sons and some of them were labouring people.

Mr. Bruton

They were farmers themselves.

Mr. L'Estrange

They made excellent use of the land. Now, due to the fact that it is almost a crime to let land in the midlands, because of the last Land Act passed, people are not inclined to let land and many are in danger of losing their livelihood. I was on a deputation to the Minister recently and three of those people were on the deputation. They are hardworking farmers. They are married and have families. They are taking 60 or 70 acres of land on the 11 months system. There seems to be very little future for those people and yet the Land Commission ignore them. The Minister should change the Land Act. A young man who has shown initiative, worked hard and earned his living by taking land down through the years, should be entitled to get a farm of land.

Mr. Bruton

This is an interesting motion put forward by Deputy Tully. It is deserving of the careful consideration which I believe it is getting here today. The motion reads:

That Dáil Éireann approves of a policy to be carried out by the Land Commission which will ensure that in the allocation of land, the claims of local deserving applicants should be satisfied, before persons from outside areas are considered.

A number of points need to be filled in in relation to this motion so that we can fully understand its import. First, how do you decide who is local and how do you decide who is deserving in the context of this motion? These are two important points which need to be spelled out. I understand from Deputy Tully that he would consider people within five, six or seven miles as locals, and that he would also consider landless people to be deserving. I would go along with him on both these points. I believe that those people should be considered for land.

It is only fair to state the implications of this. This brings into the net, so to speak, a greater number of people to be considered in relation to a particular estate than are considered at present. Under the present system only people with land within a mile and without land within a half mile of the estate are considered. It is fair and just that they should be considered because most people are not in a position in which land is divided within a mile of them. Therefore, they are never considered. If we widen the net we must realise what it will mean. It will mean that everyone within five miles, possibly, will have to be interviewed. The clerical and administrative work involved in that would be very great indeed. It is possible to argue, too, that people within six or seven miles should be considered and they would have to be interviewed also.

Another problem arises. If more people are to be considered and if they are to be satisfied, we will have to have a lot more land than there is in the hands of the Land Commission in the eastern counties. We must realise that there must be a massive increase in land acquisition by the Land Commission in the eastern counties or, under the new regulations proposed by Deputy Tully, many people will be dissatisfied. The reverse of this is taking place. I put down a question to the Minister on 23rd February, 1971, asking him the acreage of land being acquired by the Land Commission in both Kildare and Meath which are the two counties with which I am concerned in this House. In 1967-68, 2,569 acres were acquired by the Land Commission in Meath. In 1968-69 this was down to 2,145 acres. In 1969-70 it was down to 1,234 acres. In the ten months ended on 31st January, 1971, I think, only 840 acres were acquired by the Land Commission. So, less and less land is being acquired by the Land Commission and at the same time there is a proposal by Deputy Tully that a larger number of people should be considered.

I am making a case against myself, but it is only fair that I should do so. I go along with Deputy Tully on this, but it is only fair to realise the implications of what we are proposing because we shall either have to leave a great many people dissatisfied or step up acquisition to a significant extent. It will not be easy for the Land Commission to step up the acquisition of land in Meath and Kildare because the Commission will be trying to buy a very expensive commodity. The speculation referred to by Deputy Tully and Deputy L'Estrange has, to my mind, inflated the value of land far beyond its actual value.

Debate adjourned.