I move:
That Dáil Éireann is of opinion that, in view of the change in forms of transport, et cetera, since the Land Commission decided to confine allocations of land to landless men living within half a mile of an estate and to uneconomic holders living within one mile of an estate being divided, all suitable applicants living within five miles of an estate being divided should, where possible, be allocated land on that estate.
This motion is almost similar to a motion debated here 12 months ago and to other motions debated on numerous occasions in this House. The Minister is a very reasonable man and, as I said before in this House, he ensures that no one can point the finger at him and say he did not give a farm unless the applicant was a member of the Fianna Fáil Party. I hope now he will have the good sense to put into operation what is suggested in this motion.
It is difficult for people who live in the cities and the towns of this country to understand the attitude of country people to land holdings. It is more difficult still to understand people who come from country districts and who, because they are living a few years in the cities and towns, try to pretend that they do not understand the attitude of the people in the country in regard to land holdings. The fact is that Irish men and women have always attempted to find some security. The security may be a good job, but in many cases in country areas security is represented by a little bit of land. The person with land has something on which he can fall back in hard times. The person who has even a small holding of land need never go hungry if the land is worked properly.
Many years ago the Land Commission decided to confine allocations of land to what they called suitable applicants among the landless class living half a mile from the estate and to uneconomic holders one mile from the estate. Of course, if you lived 100 miles away or 200 miles away you qualified; but if you were living one mile and 100 yards away, you did not qualify. The reason the Land Commission adopted this policy was simply to have an arrangement which would save them and their officials a lot of trouble. If the system which I suggest is adopted the inspectors and the people allocating land will have a lot of trouble. They will have to be able to say that they have checked up on all eligible applicants, perhaps 40 or 50 cases, and found only a certain number, perhaps six or eight, entitled to the allocated land.
When my idea was introduced first I found a number of people, particularly Land Commission officials, who seemed to have a peculiar idea that I was suggesting that a man who was five miles away should have the same right as the man living beside the estate. That is not so. If the Land Commission inspectors can find sufficient eligible applicants near the estate the matter is settled. I want the inspectors to move out in ever-widening circles until they find sufficient qualified people. There is nothing unreasonable in that. With modern transport five miles is not a long distance. "Eligible applicant" is a description which the Land Commission have created and used on many occasions. It is difficult to understand exactly what is meant by these words. I was shocked to hear a predecessor of the present Minister saying that a dairy farmer was not a farmer. The reason he thought that the man was not a farmer was because he had worked in a factory but was advised by the doctor to get an outdoor job because his health was not good. This man had had some experience of agriculture. He began tilling the garden attached to his cottage. He then took land on the conacre system and eventually built up a herd of 20 cows and supplied milk to a creamery. He was able to live on what he was making. When two or three farms were divided he was not considered eligible for land by a Land Commission inspector because he was only employed in a dairy. The fact that he had to grow root crops to feed the cows did not seem to affect the decision. I do not know whether the Minister or the officials made the decision, but this man was very badly treated.
Due to pressure put on me and on my colleagues by those who are interested in getting some land I decided to put down a motion which has eventually reached its place on the Order Paper. A man who is employed on agriculture, whether he is working on the land or not, has a knowledge of agriculture which others have not. The Land Commission are doing a disservice to themselves and to the country when they pass over such people when land is being allocated and when they treat them as if they were second-class citizens and not entitled to be considered for land allocation.
I come from County Meath where much land has been divided. I have seen farms divided and people being moved from council cottages and given what was then considered to be a fullsized farm. Many such people made a very good job of farming. They reared families who amassed a certain amount of wealth. These people used the knowledge they had obtained while working for others to better themselves when they got the opportunity. This was Fianna Fáil policy originally, but it has been changed. The reason given for the change was that certain people got land and did not use it properly. I agree that that is so. Certain individuals got land and did not use it properly, but the Land Commission have a way of dealing with them. A man who gets an addition to his holding and is not using it properly can be dealt with. Until the land is vested the Land Commission can recover it. This has been done in many cases. This is not so, of course, in the case of people from an outside area, who give up portion of their holdings. They are usually migrants. These people usually have vested holdings which they hand up. They arrange swaps. One man told me that he got 250 acres on which the rate was 6p an acre. We know what kind of land that was. Another man got 45 acres. All these people who swap land are vested early on. Some of them sell the land which they get from the Land Commission and move off after a short time. I am not arguing against the landless man or the very small farmer because some of them dispose of the land at the first opportunity. I am not criticising the people. I have been accused of being antimigrant here on a number of occasions. The only objection I have to migration is this. I am thinking of people who are living in an area and have reared their families there and whose families are in employment, either good or bad. It is wrong to bring people in from outside and give them land which these local people feel they could use themselves. Any of the migrants who have come to County Meath must admit that they have been treated very well by the locals, including myself. As far as we are concerned, when they do come, they are there. It is a fact of life and we leave them there. In fact, more is done or offered to be done for them than for people who have been living there all their lives and, therefore, there is no question of there being any bias against them when they are there, but I think the Minister was perfectly correct when he said here six months ago that the time had come to stop migration from the west and to try to fix the land which was being divided amongst local people.
Migration does something else. When a number of outsiders from another parish, another county or from a couple of hundred miles away are brought into an area, with big families, they do in my opinion upset the balance there because the area into which they come may have a limited amount of employment. The Land Commission used to be accused of teling people who were coming to an area that, of course, there was a town at hand and plenty of employment, but when one finds a family of six, eight or ten boys and girls, just leaving school or shortly after, coming into an area, it soon ends up that either they have to emigrate or the local youngsters in jobs have to emigrate because there is not enough employment for both sets of people, and until we reach a stage even in the east of Ireland where it will be possible to give full employment this sort of thing will continue, so that in two ways an area is being injured by the influx of outsiders.
I grant that when people come from outside, they often bring in people with new ideas, and, indeed, they have brought in, particularly to County Meath, a number of very fine Gaelic footballers and we have had the satisfaction of using some of them to beat Mayo on one or two occasions and Galway, too, and they become more Meath than the Meath people themselves. This, perhaps, goes on the credit side but the facts of life are that if a man has been living beside a farm all his life and is engaged in a rural industry or is an agricultural worker, a road worker or a forestry worker and that farm comes up for division, in many cases as a result of the pressure which this man and his friends have put on the Land Commission, requesting that it be inspected and divided, it is terribly unfair that he should be passed over on the ground that he is a landless man who lives maybe 100 yards outside the half-mile the Land Commission lay down or if he has a small holding, lives slightly — maybe 100 yards — over the mile. It seems so ridiculous, particularly as the Land Commission — and this is something I would like to have clarified — have on more than one occasion claimed that the distance from the farm must be by road, and the former Minister for Lands, Deputy Ó Móráin, stated here that the half-mile from the farm and the mile from the farm, in his opinion, was to the nearest portion of the farm. I know of a particular farm in respect of which a man was ruled out by the Land Commission less than two years ago on the grounds that he was over half a mile when, in fact, he was only, as people say in the country, one field, a matter of 150 yards by the fields when, in fact, by road he could be over half a mile. This is the sort of device which is adopted for the purpose of preventing a small man from getting a share of land being divided in his area.
At the present time, in view of the price that has to be given for land — and there is talk about going into the EEC where we believe the average price of agricultural land is in the region of £2,500 per acre; I wonder what the fellows complaining of high prices for housing sites will say to that — and with the price of land going up, it is not everyone who can even accept a full farm because the annuity of over £20 per acre for a farm of 40 acres or slightly over makes it extremely difficult for some of the people concerned to be able to work land; but there is not a parish in Ireland where a farm is being divided where it is not possible to get a number of men who want to get either an addition to a holding or an accommodation plot which they can use for the growing of vegetables for their families and, in the main, to keep a cow and a few calves. It really is a bit aggravating for that type of man to find that if he is living near a farm, and as some of them even with small holdings have to find a job for the purpose of rearing their families, the Land Commission do not take the same point of view as the Minister.
I was very glad to hear the Minister say some two years ago, and he repeated it several times since, that the part-time farmer is coming. The man who has a job and is able to work his land as well is the man who, as they say in the country is snug; the most secure man in the place is the man who works his day and works his farm as well, subsidising the farm out of his earnings and he usually is a very good farmer. I would see the situation completely changed if a man who was working got land or had land and was setting it, not using it at all. The man who uses his land and uses it to the full, even if he has a job, is entitled to consideration and I see so many of these people.
I helped to take a deputation to the Minister six months ago or so, and the Minister, I am sure, remembers that numerous suggestions were made to him by a group of local people as to how, when a farm was being divided, the people who had been taken in and the people they represented could be fixed up, as a number of them were. Some of them swapped little farms they had and moved into the main estate themselves and the other people then availed themselves of this, but one particular person who everybody, including the Land Commission officials, felt was the best of the lot, a fellow who had been working his day, rearing a fairly sizeable family, had, in fact, been taking land and who, in addition, had some stock and was a progressive young man—everybody was prepared to agree that he was one person who should get land but for some peculiar reason, because he was slightly over the half-mile from the estate, he did not get it but everybody else did.
If the Minister was not as fairminded about this as I know he is, I would be forced to think that this man did not get land because he happens to be a well-known supporter of mine while the people who did get the transfers were not — they were supporters of the Minister's party. As I said, I know that the Minister does not do that kind of thing and I would never accuse him of being involved, but it is one of the coincidences which make life harder for people like me because it is very difficult to go back to this man and say, "Well, you are just unlucky", to which he replies "It is a peculiar form of being unlucky because those slightly further away were able to get it and I did not".
I regret that this is so and there must be some reason for it. I discussed the matter with numerous officials of the Land Commission all of whom were prepared to say that this man was an excellent man and one they would like to help.
Considerable pressure has been put on the Land Commission in the last few years by an organisation known as the National Land League. In the main they have been fighting for the people who live near estates. I should like to repeat here what I have said on numerous occasions. I agree entirely with their aims and I will give them full support so long as they remain within the law; as soon as they go outside the law they will not get support from me.
In the main they have been lawabiding and they have used the peaceful protest for the purpose of establishing what I am asking for in this resolution. However, there are offshoots of that organisation, people who have been members and who have moved to a little land league of their own, usually with an eye to assisting themselves and their friends to get something, and sometimes just "for the devilment of it", as they say in the country. The inevitable result is that somebody is left carrying the can. On more than one occasion we have seen people being taken in by some of the bright boys who were full of advice but who made sure that they were far away when the trouble started. These people did not finish up behind bars in Mountjoy. I suppose every organisation has its wild men and these people create trouble.
I have made this appeal to the Minister in the hope that we will get a certain amount of publicity about this so that those people who come to me, to Deputy Kavanagh and to other Deputies about this matter, will be aware that their point of view can be and has been aired in the House. One of the greatest tragedies at the moment is that certain people have the idea that authority to talk about matters is no longer with this House and that other people outside can, and that they do things which will achieve results we cannot obtain.
The fact that we have a Minister listening to Opposition Deputies — and I hope to some of his own backbenchers later on — dealing with the problem of the landless man and the small farmer is evidence that this House is important and that this is the place to discuss such topics. While I have great respect for my friends in the Press Gallery, occasionally some of the extreme "left-wing" elements like the Irish Independent may be inclined to publish their views of what we have said in a way which possibly might give the wrong impression. The Labour Party believe in political democracy and believe that matters such as this can be cleared up on the floor of this House. That is why this motion is being debated.
The Minister for Lands is a very reasonable man, and I am not saying this for the purpose of trying to get around him. He knows I disagree violently with his party and much of what they stand for, but all of us must be prepared to see the good and bad points in each other's policy. The pronouncements of the Minister on the problem we are now debating leads me to believe that, more than anyone else, he can go a long way towards solving it.
On one occasion I asked an employee of the Land Commission — he is no longer an employee of the Department — for information about why this regulation regarding the half-mile or mile was introduced. I have my own ideas about this, and I have enunciated them in the House. I was told that the reason for the introduction of this regulation was that the person who got land which was more than one mile from his home would find it extremely difficult to work the farm. It was considered by the Department that it would take him such a long time to travel to and from the farm with a horse and cart or a pony and cart that he would waste too much time and the extra land would be a burden on the man. I was catty enough to point out that the horse or pony of the landless man would travel just as quickly as that of the man who had some land and, therefore, I could not see any point in the regulation regarding the half-mile. It cannot be suggested that in the midlands or in the east of the country, and in many parts of the west and south, the farmer is using a horse or pony to travel round his farm and to carry out work. Things are so mechanised that a half-mile is insignificant and, in fact, the farmer frequently goes four or five miles in order to till land. The proof of this is the number of people who take conacre and who travel a considerable distance in order to work the land.
A matter that is causing a considerable amount of trouble — I cannot understand why the Land Commission have ignored it — is the case of the man who has been taking land around the various estates. When the Land Commission take over an estate they take away the pool of land being used by the people. When this happens the man has to go further and, in addition, the price of the land is increased. I know of one unfortunate man to whom this happened on three occasions. The third time he thought he was being clever; he succeeded in renting some stabling from the estate which was about to be taken over and he put in 40 cows and took some of the farm. Not only did the Land Commission not give him any of the estate but they put the cows out on the road and divided the farm among other people who were not as good at working it. The man concerned started as a farm labourer and finished up the same way because he could not get any place to put the cows and was obliged to sell them.
We hear about the pool of land getting smaller. We know that the ordinary farmer, the man who got 25 acres some years ago, looks with envy at the man who got 40 acres, who in turn, is looking with envy at any farm that comes up. He is of the opinion that the size of the farm should be increased. I realise it is essential that we cut our cloth according to measure but if land which is not being used is taken over by the Land Commission and divided, whether given locally or to migrants, those who did not get land and who know that there is no hope of further land being available, realise that their chances of having a decent farm are gone. The result is that a certain bitterness builds up and this is what we should avoid. This is why we should be able to talk about and to dictate policies about these matters in this House.
I may be accused of trying to cast a slur on the Land Commission officials because I have stated most definitely, and I am not withdrawing the statement, that the idea of the half-mile and the one-mile was cooked up many years ago by senior officials who felt this was the way of lessening the workload on the people under them.
Most of the Land Commission inspectors and the officials we meet on deputations are reasonable men who are prepared to talk and to agree with a point of view, but they usually end up by saying: "You know, of course, that it is not our decision". Of course, we know it is not their decision but somebody must carry the can and eventually it must come back, as I am sure it does, on to the shoulders of the Minister.
If we have reached the stage at which Land Commission officials are prepared to agree that the amount of land available in an area is coming to an end, then I am sure they will also be prepared to agree that it is very unfair to rule out completely people who believe they are entitled to a holding on the grounds that they are not eligible for one reason or another; usually it is a quibble.
Another complaint I have about the Land Commission inspectors is — maybe they do it out of politeness — that they go around and interview many people within the stipulated area. How they manage it I do not know, but everyone they talk to is left with the impression that he will get land. This is one way of preventing a row being kicked up before the land is divided. When the land is divided there is bitterness, not only between the people concerned and the Land Commission, but the people concerned and those who have got the land. This is not a good thing and for that reason I would appeal again to the Minister to tell his officials to go around and talk to everyone within a reasonable distance and divide the land amongst them.
From time to time we get complaints from people who feel they should get land because they had been employed on an estate. The Minister must take a firm stand on this. I am not asking him to interfere politically but, as the political head of the Department, he is entitled to point out what the policy is. If ten or 15 men were employed on an estate which is being divided and if six, or eight or 12 months before the employer who sold the lands to the Land Commission decided to let most of them go because he is going to sell the farm, then, if they are living within a few miles of the estate, it is most unfair for the Land Commission inspector to tell them: "Of course, you were gone before the Land Commission took over. Of course, you have no land and you are over a half a mile away and, therefore, you are out. You are not entitled to anything." The Land Commission must look at this in a reasonable way and give these men the compensation they would have got if the employer had not decided to save on their wages; he did not intend to work the farm properly as he intended to get rid of it.
There is also the point about the man who is retained. I find a peculiar attitude on the part of the Land Commission. Perhaps it is not peculiar to them, but it is peculiar to somebody like me who knows conditions in the country. I refer to the man who is employed on an estate, looking after it for the Land Commission until it is divided; or he may be retained in employment, part-time or full-time by his previous employer. It is rather unfair that he should be told that he still has a job and he is not entitled to a part no matter in what other way he is eligible.
There are numerous instances in which men like that are dismissed within a short period for something which has nothing at all to do with the Land Commission. They lose their jobs and they get no compensation of any kind. On one occasion I know the Land Commission were very generous to such a person. When the matter was raised with them they helped him out as best they could. They were then confined to a very tight schedule. If the man had been dismissed with the rest of the men on the farm when it was taken over he would now be a farmer in his own rights with 40 acres of land and a good house. As it turned out, he had to borrow money and build a little house for himself. He is living in it now and driving in and out to Dublin where he is employed as a builder's labourer but his heart is in agriculture.
If this country is to survive we must keep on the land those who are interested in the land. I do not care how strict the Land Commission are in ensuring that the people who get land keep it and work it properly or else hand it back. The people who know how to work the land, who have lived in the area all their lives, who know the market, who know the type of land they are working, who know the crops and who know the correct time to put in crops and take them out, which is very important, should get the first consideration.
Another group who are being badly dealt with, in my opinion, are farmers' sons. If a farmer has four or five sons he may be living on a farm which is big enough to rear that family but, when his time comes, only one of them can remain on it. It is very cold comfort to the others to tell them that, since their father's farm is over a certain size, they are not entitled to get an addition or a farm for themselves. These people usually finish up as builders' labourers or they emigrate to England, Australia or Canada. They leave their district and each one who leaves is a loss. They know the land and they know how to work it.
I honestly believe that if we are interested in seeing agriculture prosper — we are told so often that agriculture is our primary industry — we must devise a system of land division and land settlement which will be acceptable to all concerned. I still think it is not a crime to make money. It is not a crime to be successful. It is not a crime for a young farmer to be able to build a house, have a farm, work it and rear a family. If he makes money, good luck to him. The Land Commission should do their share by extending the limit from half a mile for a landless man and from a mile for an uneconomic holder to five miles, I would suggest, although I am not tied to that figure. When the inspectors are dividing a farm they should go from the centre out and choose those who will make good farmers and allocate land to them.
