Cavan): Before reporting progress on Thursday last I had dealt with a number of matters raised in the debate. I had dealt with points raised about speculators, the control of land sales, the delay in the allotment of lands in the possession of the Land Commission, the problem of paying for lands in cash rather than in land bonds and the order I had made to include Cavan and Monaghan in the congested districts, thereby giving them the benefit of half annuities. I was in the course of dealing with the problem of commonage, a problem which arises in many parts of the country.
Since the increase in land values and increased profitability from agricultural activities commonage has become a very important matter. We have two kinds of commonage, lowland commonage and mountain commonage. There is a request for the division of commonages and their allocation to those entitled to graze them. When there is agreement between the commoners there is no problem and the Land Commission will carry out the wishes of those involved, arrange for fencing and generally implement a scheme acceptable to the owners. It will be the continuing policy of my Department to pursue as energetically as possible the division of commonages. Now, when there is a commonage some of the owners of which want divided and others want things to go on as they are, the problem is a very different one because it then becomes a human problem and, unless there is agreement, it is very difficult to do a job that will not result in bad feeling and possibly litigation as soon as the Land Commission have pulled out.
Where it is in the interest of better agricultural productivity to divide a commonage everything should be done by my Department and by those concerned to have it divided. I should like to appeal to the owners of commonages to be reasonable with each other, to listen to the advice given by the advisory services and to come forward with an agreed scheme to the Land Commission. If that is asking too much, they should at least come to the Land Commission in a frame of mind in which they are prepared to fall in with advice and suggestions and accept the arbitration of the Land Commission. If they do that, I can assure them they will get every assistance and co-operation from my Department.
I should like to appeal to voluntary organisations, to the farming organisations, the county committees of agriculture and the advisory services in general to try to create an atmosphere among the owners of commonages that will lead to a reasonable approach to this matter which is a problem at the moment. Candidly, I do not believe it is possible for the Land Commission through the compulsory powers which they have to go in and divide a commonage against the will of some of the owners and hope that things will go smoothly afterwards. I regret to say this is not possible and I think this view is shared by all reasonable Members of this House.
I would make a further appeal to the owners of grazing on commonage and to the voluntary organisations, to the county committees of agriculture and the advisory services in general, and would direct their attention towards this problem with a view to solving it. On the last occasion I visited Erris, County Mayo, I had an opportunity of seeing some of the representatives of the advisory services there. I am satisfied they are doing all they can to bring about the climate I hope for and I am glad that this is happening throughout the country. It will take time but, with the goodwill of all concerned and with a response to the appeal I am making now, I hope we will be able to solve the problem.
A number of Deputies, including Deputies Finn, Calleary and Gallagher, raised the matter of vacant houses on lands taken over by the Land Commission. I know this is a problem but generally I do not think there is unreasonable delay. We are conscious of the necessity for disposing of houses as quickly as possible, of getting people who want them into occupation. In some cases the disposal of the house is necessarily tied up with the division of land. The house might be included in an allotment by way of enlargement or re-arrangement. In such cases the disposal of the house must await the preparation and approval of the scheme for the division of the land and that may not be possible for two or three years. However, when there is a very needy applicant in the locality, it is Land Commission policy to try to allow him into occupation of the house even in advance of the final scheme being drawn up. If there is no such smallholder in the locality, the policy of the Land Commission is to sell the house by public auction.
There is a problem when the question of migration arises because a house must be found for the migrant when he takes up his new residence and the Land Commission cannot sell the other house, if it is to be sold by public auction, until the title has been perfected. Sometimes that takes a considerable time. I understand that in County Mayo the practice has been to offer the county council in the first instance the houses which are to be sold. That may have led to some delays in that county because I am advised that in many cases the county council eventually decided not to buy the houses. It appears reasonable to offer these houses to the housing authority so that they might be able to give them to people in need but I have noted the points made in regard to the delays in allocating the houses or putting them to use. I accept that houses deteriorate if they are left uninhabited for a considerable time and officers of my Department and I will do all we can to expedite allocation of the houses.
It would not be a debate on the Estimate for the Department of Lands if the matter of the one-mile limit was not raised. As Deputies know, for many years it has been Land Commission policy in the first instance to consider applicants for land who are resident within approximately one mile of the holding being divided. This matter was debated on a few occasions in the House in the not-too-distant past on a Private Member's motion and in reply to questions. As a general principle, everyone will agree that a farm can be more conveniently and effectively managed if it is together. If a farmer can walk from one field to another without going out on the public road, if he can drive his stock from one field to another without having to use the roadway, that is accepted as the ideal situation. It follows from that, that when this ideal situation cannot be attained the next best thing is to try to get land which is being allotted as near as possible to the parent holding. The distance of one mile has been taken as being reasonable. It is not a statutory condition; it is simply policy laid down by the Land Commission as being reasonable and practical. I suppose applicants who live within a mile of a holding approve of it, while those outside the limit think the distance should be extended. Generally it works well enough and is the best way of selecting allottees. Where the Land Commission acquire a large holding and there are no suitable allottees within the policy mile, the practice is to migrate some suitable applicants either from a distance or from the same locality. I shall be dealing with that later on. The long term migrants are getting fewer and fewer over the past five years. They are not too keen on moving, and, indeed, it is considered that it is probably better policy to migrate people from the same general locality.
As I say, I have yet to be convinced that it would be a good thing to select candidates from two or three miles, or five miles, as has been suggested. The argument has been made that farmers are more mobile now that they have tractors and motor cars. That is an argument in favour of extending the mile; it could also be an argument against it, because, with heavier traffic on the roads, it is not desirable that the roads should be cluttered up with farm machinery or stock moving from one part of a farm to another. I think experience not alone in this country but throughout the world shows that it is undesirable to create fragmented holdings, that it is desirable to have as closely knit a unit as possible. While it does not seem to be wise to depart from that policy, it is not a statutory condition and in exceptional cases it can be breached.
The argument has been made, too, in favour of landless men, and this is an argument with which I have considerable sympathy and can understand. At the same time, the general business of the Land Commission is to create economic holdings, to bring the small farmer who is working on an uneconomic holding up to a viable standard. In the years immediately ahead the definition of a viable farm may change and change drastically. In years gone by, with the traditional type of farming, cropping, milk or beef, a sizeable farm was necessary. If we were to continue in that type of farming a sizeable farm would still be necessary. However, with modern techniques and modern approaches to farming, you have intensive farming here and there, intensive pig rearing, intensive poultry rearing, and even intensive cattle rearing. That means another look may have to be taken at what is a viable farm and the acreage acquired. We all know that it is not so much how many acres a man farms that counts as the amount of money that his activities bring him in. The test should be that a man is given a sufficient amount of land to enable him to make a decent living when compared with other sections of the community. The statistics show that there are between 60,000 and 80,000 farmers on sub-standard holdings which require restructuring and enlargement under the land settlement programme. These uneconomic holders have a fundamental priority in regard to allotment of land.
That is just the problem, that there is not enough land at the present time to cater for the needs of the uneconomic farmer without bringing thousands of other applicants into the group. The question is whether the scheme we have prepared under EEC Directive 160 will improve that; whether in the years ahead there will be leasing of land which may make land available for people who have served their time to agriculture and who are skilled and qualified to use it, is something that will have to be considered.
As things stand at the moment and under conditions which have prevailed for many years and, indeed, which prevail at the present time, it would be bad policy to introduce thousands and thousands of new applicants into an already overcrowded pool of applicants. That is as clear as I can put it. I do not mean to say that, due to conditions which may arise as a result of our going into Europe, as a result of people leaving farming, there may not be land for well-qualified and well-trained applicants, However, anyone who is prepared to anticipate what is going to happen as a result of our entry into Europe, what is going to happen as a result of the schemes under Directives 159, 160 and 161, is indulging purely in guesswork. We shall have to see to it that the three schemes are as effective and as generous as possible and hope they will bring about the desired result, at the same time as we hope the industrial arm of the economy will develop hand in hand a more viable and profitable agricultural programme.
The question of letting land acquired by the Land Commission pending its distribution has been raised, and complaints have been made, not alone during this debate but frequently in this House over the last couple of years, that outsiders are grabbing up land that is offered for letting to the exclusion of small men in the locality who might eventutlly hope to be allotted land. I concede that should be avoided if at all possible. Smallholders in the locality within a reasonable distance, or even within a few miles, should have first claim on the land which is being let. This is not an easy problem to solve. As I said previously, the ideal way of selling anything if one wants to be fair to everybody is to sell it by public auction. I agree in regard to what we are talking about now that that might lead to the survival of the wealthiest. On the other hand, the weak must be protected and we may have to look around for the best way of letting land to the needy. Were we to leave the letting of land to the local Land Commission inspector and authorise him to let it by private treaty I would not like to be in his position. He would be open to pressures of one sort or another and to allegations that he discriminated against certain people. There would be allegations of the abuse of political power as there have been in connection with these matters in the past.
A third way suggests itself to me. It is that the land might be let by sealed tender of those within a specified distance of the holding and who could be regarded as smallholders. The difficulties which this seemingly simple matter presents are huge. Let us consider public auction. A condition could be written into the conditions of sale that farmers from outside a three-mile limit would not be considered. There is nothing to prevent somebody getting an agent to bid for him. The auctioneer could knock down the land and let it to the agent. It is very difficult to prove whether the local man is really the tenant or whether he is a caretaker for a wealthy man living a considerable distance away. That can happen in any case of letting whether by public auction, private treaty, or sealed tender. This matter has been raised here on a number of occasions by way of Parliamentary Question. It has been discussed in the course of debate also. There has been a Parliamentary Question on this matter since the Dáil reassembled. The matter has been seriously considered in the Land Commission with a view to seeing if the problem can be solved.
