Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Seanad Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 19 Jul 1934

Vol. 18 No. 32

Proposed Inquiry into Land Settlement: Motion by Senator Sir John Keane.

After considerable delay, which was not due to any fault of the House but to the amount of public business that had to be gone through, I am now in a position to move the motion standing in my name:

"That this House requests the Government to institute an inquiry by agricultural economists and practical farmers into the present policy of closer land settlement, and that until the report of this inquiry is available a stay be placed on the further acquisition of grass-fattening lands."

I do not propose to say much on this motion. The matter is quite simple and straightforward. It really arises out of the personal experience of a certain large and practical land owner such as exists here. Land owners, of course, have changed a good deal in character in late years. He asked me if I would like to see what was really happening in relation to the division of this rich land with which I propose to deal. I said I would. I am not one of the fortunate people who possess rich land. I am rather accustomed to deal with a poor class of land—semi-mountainy land. In due course I went in to see this rich land. I spent the whole day visiting some of it which has been divided in the County Meath. I must frankly say that I was appalled at what I saw. It was because of what I saw that I took the earliest opportunity of putting down this motion on the Order Paper. What one saw was this: that what was once land of undoubted high fertility was being divided up into small areas of 15 or 20 acres. These small areas were enclosed. They were served by accommodation roads. I am only dealing with a couple of cases because, naturally, I was not in a position to travel the whole district. These areas of divided land were served by narrow accommodation roads. In many cases, the roads were not metalled. The land was fenced with sod banks. In many cases, because of our humid climate, these sod banks never become firm and were falling down. I am told that unless you plant quicks on a sod fence that the fences will not last. There are no stones in that district to face the banks with, or at any rate they are hard to get. What happened in this case was that the banks had fallen down. Ragged and imperfect wire fences had been erected on each side. That might not matter very much except at certain periods of the year. Incidentally, these wire fences destroy a very important part of the country for hunting which, apart from the employment it gives, has a distinct bearing on our great horse-breeding industry. When you came to see the land you were presented with a most pitiable state of affairs. I did not see any stock on it. What I saw had been meadowed for a considerable number of years and was growing a totally rank herbage. You had only got to compare that land with other land in the same district which had been what one might call ranched: in other words, which had been grazed by cattle. That land had a natural fertility due largely to its treatment I imagine with cattle manure. That, I imagine, has been going on from time immemorial. There were no houses on this divided land. I met one of the brave boys who owns a bit of this land. I am told that there is no great tillage tradition in that district. This brave fellow came along and I got talking to him. I asked him if he had paid his rent and annuities. He said that he had not, and I asked him what he was going to do about it. He said: "They can do nothing; there is no stock on the land." He was laughing at them. He may have been an exceptional case.

The point that I want to make to the Minister is that in that case—I do not say that it applies to all cases—the land is being absolutely destroyed. I am not referring to one holding. There are a number of holdings, a dozen in the district. There are no houses, as the owners of the land were living in a bog nearby. The land there had been from time immemorial used for a special purpose. It had been put to an economic use, the development and the fattening of live stock. Of course, the Minister will say that live stock is a thing of the past. I do not believe that any sensible body of men would believe that. Whatever the proposition may be, surely no one who looks ahead would say that these lands, of which there is very little better in the world for the fattening of stock, should be divorced from their purpose and practically turned back to rank grass. That is what it practically amounts to. I went to another place and saw very much the same thing. Senator Counihan will be more eloquent on that than I am. I saw some thin cows with long horns and second and third rate calves which would never be associated with that class of land. It is on second and third class land that that class of cattle are seen, and not on rich pasture. I am credibly informed, and I have had the opinion of experienced agriculturists, that if you stock good land with inferior cattle it injures it. In order to have good land it is necessary to have good stock upon it. There was practically no stock on the land I saw.

Moreover, it will interest the Minister, when he is dealing with the division of land, to know that I was informed that the fences would not stand up to "quicks." Apparently, if you are building a bank for quicks it is necessary to leave a sod projecting. There were no quicks on the fences. The banks had fallen down and looked derelict. As far as this class of land is concerned the Government is forming agricultural slums, just as tenement slums were formed in cities. That cannot be right. There was very little tillage to be seen. In a wet season they will not be able to grow cereal crops there. I believe that in the past they never grew cereals in the rich lands of Meath, even when we were self-supporting in the matter of wheat. I suggest that is the reason why it was not grown there. Out of my experience, limited as it is, I say that there is a case for enquiry into this whole policy. We know the difficulties that beset a Government in a matter of this kind. There are always local politicians and local clubs pulling for all they are worth to get land divided amongst the local people, irrespective of their qualifications. My information was that in many cases no respect was paid to qualifications. The persons I saw appeared to be a happy sort of Meath cattlemen. There are many more like that.

Surely, the Minister must recognise that regard must be paid to qualifications and as to whether persons have a tillage tradition. There must also be a means test, unless you are going to put people on land who have no experience of tillage. Undoubtedly, that is going on, but to what extent I do not know. It is a very serious matter, because this land is a most precious asset, as precious as the gold mines to Kimberley, the Rand to South Africa, or the prairie to Canada. This is the way a great priceless asset is being deliberately destroyed. Small enclosures of land with the fences falling down, I am perfectly sure, are not suitable for raising meat, beef or sheep, in any form. There must be large enclosures if the traditional policy is to continue. If Ministers are to be men capable of taking the long view of their responsibilities, I say this land is going to be divorced from its original purpose and thrown into the melting pot by being made into holdings instead of using it for stock finishing. I am attacking the whole policy and the methods. From my experience of what is being done in certain districts, I realise that you must have a closer settlement of the people. There was a policy of dividing land by moving big ranchers from the west to rich lands which would be properly treated. That was right. What I saw of the closer settlement moved me so much that I decided to come to this House to ask that something should be done. This matter should be investigated independently. It cannot be left to a policy of drift. The Minister is not an agriculturalist. He is a busy man with associations, chiefly in towns, and I suppose does not know as much as I do about this subject. Surely it would be an advantage to have an independent inquiry, without any politics, into the agricultural economics of closer settlements. It has been going on for many years, and a large amount of data must have accumulated. It is right to know if we are going on the right lines. It may be asked what are the right lines. They were not the right lines where I visited. I suggest that the Government should get agricultural economists, people who have studied the theory and who have had a certain amount of practice, as well as some practical farmers to deal with the question. I do not want politicians. I do not want to see an inquiry by members of the Dáil or the Seanad, but practical men who will say whether this policy is right or not. If we had that we could form an opinion. Such an inquiry is long overdue.

The Cathaoirleach resumed the Chair.

I second. Senator Sir John Keane, in my opinion, has made a very definite case for the setting up of a commission to inquire into the wisdom of the Government's policy in splitting up rich grazing lands. This commission should not be political, and it should be left to the Minister to select members to constitute it. The only thing asked is that agricultural economists and practical farmers should be on it. The number is not stated; the whole idea being that the present policy would be inquired into, so that the Minister and the Government could be advised on the rights and wrongs of it. Although the motion does not say so, it has been stated that the splitting up of the rich grazing lands should be stopped. The motion asks for a stoppage of that policy until there is an inquiry. If the policy of splitting up the rich grazing lands is carried to any great length, in my opinion, it will have a most disastrous effect on our agricultural resources, and be detrimental to our economic interests. The purpose of splitting up these lands was to grow wheat and to give employment. From that point of view let us examine this policy. Last year we paid £2,412,000 for wheat and £684,000 for flour. That is slightly more than £3,000,000, and for that we are asked to sacrifice the export of cattle worth £12,000,000. Is that an economic proposition? I say it is not. What effect will the breaking up of rich grazing lands have on fattening properties when these lands are again laid down in pasture? We all hope that the economic dispute with England will soon end, that we will then require fat cattle for export, and that we will get good prices in the British market. For that reason, we should consider what effect the breaking up of rich land will have on the future fattening qualities of that land. It has been stated, and I believe rightly, that it will take from ten to 20 years in pasture, after fattening land has been tilled, to regain its qualities. I think that is not disputed. How will this policy affect employment? Even if we were to grow all the wheat we require, and which we could buy for £3,000,000, we would only give employment to a few men on every farm for a few days in the spring, cultivating the land and sowing the seeds. The gates would then be closed and there would be no further employment in the growing of wheat until the harvest. In the harvest employment would be given for a few more days, and that would finish employment for the year. If the whole of the work was done by paid labour, and if we grew all the wheat we require in this country, the whole amount of labour would not represent more than £1,000,000.

Is this rich land suitable for growing wheat? In my opinion it is not. If the Minister would like to have some experience of the sort of crop the rich lands produce, I would invite him to come out and see some of my wheat. At the present time the biggest portion of it is as flattened as if a steam roller went over it. To harvest that wheat would cost more than the whole value of the crop. The policy of dividing up land amongst landless men has been already tried to a large extent. I would ask the Minister to have inquiries made as to the use to which that land has been put, to inquire what percentage is being tilled, how it has increased production and how much extra employment it has given. In my neighbourhood some farms have been divided and I do not know a single one of these farmers who can even live on their holdings. They cannot afford to pay the rates and annuities. I have at the present time employed as agricultural workers four of that class of farmers. Each of these four has 20 to 30 acres of that divided land and he cannot live on it. We can buy all the wheat we require for £3,000,000. If we produce that wheat ourselves, it would give employment only to the extent of about £1,000,000. As I have asked already, are we going to scrap the whole of our cattle trade, the export of which brought us £12,000,000 per annum and the production of which would give employment, if all the labour were paid for, to the extent of well over £2,000,000? Which is the better proposition from the labour point of view?

Another question we want to consider is how this policy will affect the poorer parts of the country. This is a very important consideration. We discussed here to-day the Gaeltacht (Housing) Bill. The Gaeltacht is receiving every consideration from the Government but I say definitely that if the Government split up the rich grazing lands they will be doing an irreparable damage to the Gaeltacht and the poorer districts. They will do irreparable harm to a good many parts of the country in which there is no dairying industry, in which there is no land fit to grow wheat, where there is very little tillage and where the land is only suitable for the production of sheep and store cattle. If the rich lands are divded, the people living in the poorer districts will be deprived of their market for their store cattle. The Government will be depriving them of their best customers and depriving them of their only market, which is the home market. For that reason I hope the Minister will accept this motion and give effect to it. I do not want to discuss any further the details of the question but if the commission is set up, I am prepared to give such evidence before such a commission.

This motion has been on the Order Paper for a considerable time in the name of Senator Sir John Keane. Reading the motion, and seeing the name that was under it, I expected that we would have had a comprehensive argument on the subject and that the problem would be faced fully, frankly, and fairly. What is the problem before this or any Government in this country at the present time? One of our main problems is that we have a growing population and a prolific race, especially in the West of Ireland. What provision is to be made for them? If Senator Sir John Keane had suggested, as he could suggest, means by which that population could obtain a livelihood, his statements in relation to the grazing lands of Meath and elsewhere would, of course, deserve very serious consideration, such as any observations made by him ought to receive. But what he has said is this: "I made an excursion into the County Meath. I met some hero who was on the borders of a bog. He showed me some of the fattening lands of Meath which he said belonged to him. I understood from him he was living in the bog. I saw the land. The fences were tumbling down. I did not see any tillage." I wonder does Senator Sir John Keane know anything? At least I withdraw that, and I will state——

I will suggest to Senator Sir John Keane that if a man has a bit of good, clean grazing land near a bog, if he is a sensible man, he has his tillage in the bog and he leaves the grazing land for cattle.

May I ask the Senator not to build up his whole case on one instance? I gave a number of cases.

The instance is so beautiful that it deserves a little more inquiry. Then, Senator Sir John Keane says that this fattening land has been meadowed and that the grass is growing rank. That was a very surprising statement to make, because if you meadow land the grass becomes finer, and it is only when you graze it that it becomes strong and rank. The next thing which the Senator said was that he saw thin cows with long horns. If the Senator saw thin cows on good land, he may be quite sure that they are good milkers. As to the horns, there is a breed of long-horned cattle in Meath and Westmeath and they are very good cattle. A thin cow on good land in the midst of the milking season is a sign that the man who owns her is a good farmer, because the cow is producing what a cow is expected to produce—milk.

There is no dairy there.

Whether there is a dairy there or not, a milking cow is supposed to produce milk.

Senator Sir John Keane says it is all bosh.

Cathaoirleach

This poor man had to break up the bog then?

Cathaoirleach

There is an old saying that if you break the bog it breaks you.

I think breaking the bog will not break the County Meath farmer because he is not accustomed to work. Another thing Senator Sir John Keane says—and I should not like it to be stated in the Seanad without comment, observation or contradiction—that if you stock land with inferior cattle the land goes bad. You put Kerry cattle on fattening land when I suppose you should put them on Kerry land. I shall not pursue the matter further than to say that if you stock land with milking-cows or young cattle continuously, without putting into the land the elements that are drawn from it, either in the milk or the bone, that land will deteriorate.

That is what I said.

If that is what Senator Sir John Keane meant, there is no person in this House who is better able to express what he means than the Senator. If you put fully-grown cattle on fattening land to be fattened they will bring away from that area fat which is not a mineral constituent of the soil at all and they will leave the land as fertile as it was. There might be something in that. If Senator Sir John Keane or Senator Counihan would come forward with a proposal dealing with the problem that this or any other Government has to face, a proposal which will provide employment, subsistence and a livelihood for our people and that would preserve, as much as possible, all the grazing and fattening lands of Meath for the purposes for which they are most suitable, I am sure his proposal would be well received by this or any other Government. I hope that beef will be produced in this country, and in the lands of Meath, for export to England as long as that export is necessary, and for consumption at home when we have the mouths to eat it and the money to pay for it. That brings us to the real question at issue here, the question of industrial development, the question of employment for the people. Why does Senator Sir John Keane not come forward and say this: "You have a teeming population in the West; something must be done for them. If nothing else can be done for them the soil is there. The division and subdivision of the soil is not a desirable thing, but something must be done for the people"? Why does Senator Sir John Keane not come forward and say that there are industries that might be developed in the West so as to give employment to the people, and that there are industries that might be developed in parts of the centre of Ireland? I can promise Senator Sir John Keane that if the people of the West or of the centre of Ireland can get a decent living where they are, they are not a covetous people and they will not look across the fence at his land or any other man's land. But when Senator Counihan and Senator Sir John Keane say that these lands should not be divided, that is simply an inhibition——

I did not say that.

They ought to go further and say "We suggest to the Government this means of dealing with the problem. We suggest to the Government that industries should be established which may not be in competition with Great Britain." There are many things that could be produced here, and produced economically, in which you could cooperate with the industrial centres of Great Britain. That is the way in which I expected Senator Sir John Keane to introduce his proposal.

It has nothing to do with the motion at all.

It has everything to do with the motion. The meaning of the motion is this: you must stop the division of land.

Yes, the motion asks that the Government he requested "to institute an enquiry by agricultural economists and practical farmers into the present policy of closer land settlement and that until the report of this enquiry is available, a stay be placed on the further acquisition of grass-fattening lands." You are not to look inside the fences in Meath, Westmeath or any other place where there is grass-fattening land until this commission reports. But people cannot wait. Unless Senator Sir John Keane or Senator Counihan has an alternative proposal it is no use.

Does the Senator contend that he is going to improve the position of the people in the Gaeltacht by splitting up the rich grazing lands in Meath and doing away with their market?

What I say, in fact, is that certain lands in Meath, and elsewhere, in grass, afford a certain limited market for the store cattle of the West. That is an argument so far as it goes, and no one who knows the situation will deny it. But Senator Sir John Keane, in part of his speech, seems to admit that there is necessity for the division of land.

I never denied it.

Splitting up the farms of the people so that they may have more employment. His suggestion is that every large farm in the West of Ireland should be taken over and those who own them should be migrated to larger farms in the East.

I never said that.

That has been done. There is scarcely a large farm in the West of which the owner has not been requested to transfer. In most cases the owners have taken transfers to land in the East of Ireland. There is very little land available in the West.

Another argument used has been put in the form of a question. What percentage of the small farms has been tilled? I freely admit that a high percentage has not been tilled. I have not seen a very high percentage of small farms put under cultivation; but still the percentage is higher than it was before. Another point: it is said that the grass-fattening lands are not suitable for tillage or growing wheat. I wonder, again, does Senator Counihan think when he says these things, that he is speaking to people who have no knowledge of agriculture. Some of the best lands in Meath are more suitable for the growing of wheat than any other land I know in Ireland.

And can be put to greater use than producing wheat.

There are the uplands or hilly portions of the country. While I admit that there are certain parts of almost every farm in Meath not suitable for tillage, I do say that in every farm I have seen there is at least 20 or 25 per cent. that would make the best wheat land in Ireland. That cannot be denied. Senator Counihan says that if the land is once put under the plough it will not regain its customary fertility for 15 or 20 years. There is something to be said for that. Land in Meath laid out in grass may not arrive at the same fertility that it had before as grazing land, for four or five years. But I think 15 or 20 years is altogether too much. Our point of view is that that land should never come back to grass, but that it should remain in tillage. Then there is the greatest argument of all, that a place must be found for people to live in. It is not the same thing to say, as Sir John Keane says, the land has to be put to the most economic use, as to say the land must be put to the best use. There is a great difference between the two. Land cannot be put to the best use if it has not a proper proportion of human beings living upon it. 1,000 acres with one herdsman and a dog is capable of producing many fat bullocks; but 1,000 acres of land with 15 or 20 houses upon it, with 15 or 20 families to be provided for, is better——

And starving!

If a family cannot live on 15 or 20 acres of land in the East of Ireland, there must be something in the the soil or in the climate which prevents them, because many families are living in comparative comfort on 15 or 20 acres of land in the West of Ireland. While I say that I, for one, know that there are a good many people in the West of Ireland who do not cultivate their land. If you can put up a proposition which, I submit, is a better proposition, that is, if you can find industrial employment, or some other way of providing a means of subsistence for these people, then, so far as I am concerned you can have your grass lands a little longer.

I rise to support the motion moved by Senator Sir John Keane. I think the division of the rich fattening lands in Meath, Westmeath and Kildare would be a fatal error for the Government to undertake. I say that because people in Wexford, Waterford, Kerry and Cork, as well as Clare, Roscommon and the Gaeltacht, have been building hopes upon these rich lands because they know that the calves from the southern counties are migrated through Clare and Roscommon and eventually come to these places to be fattened. If you divide the land of Meath, Westmeath and Kildare into small holdings, you will simply become a united nation of producers of the very self-same article, and you will destroy the market for the immature article which supplies the new material for the rich lands. At the fairs held in the West of Ireland, in Ballinasloe, Loughrea and other such places, huge numbers of store cattle are found to be sold to the farmers in Meath, Westmeath and Kildare. If these great farms were not there the English and Scottish buyers attending these fairs could buy at their own prices. I do not believe that a farm such as Senator Comyn described of 1,000 acres, and one man and one dog, is a blot upon the face of Ireland. I differ from that view altogether. In my opinion these farms are super-efficiency factories, and I see no objection that the country should be able to supply to England or any other country the finished article, turned out with wonderful efficiency, greater than Ford is possessed of in his factories. Senator Comyn went on to call attention to an ever-increasing population that has to be provided for. But that question is not insoluble. We have the great Shannon scheme spreading out from one end of Ireland to the other. We have that enormous power running for practically twelve hours a day without any load. Let us look at what is happening in Switzerland, in Sweden, and in Norway. In these countries they have sub-divided their line of operations. They have the same troubles as we have; they have an increasing population. What did they do? Every small farmer's place is connected up with the electrical scheme. They have decentralised their factories, they no longer try to compete as separate factories or institutions or different units of labour. Each cottage is a unit of labour in which some part, some small portion of some particular article, is made during the week. It is then collected on the Saturday. The necessary materials are brought to the cottage at the beginning of the week, and the finished article is collected on the Saturday, so that the man loses no time in walking to and from his factory, and he is paid exactly for the work he does. He does this work under the most favourable conditions, and exactly at the time that he likes to work, and he can divide his time between that particular work and the work on his own home and his immediate farm. I suggest to the Minister that that question should receive immediate attention and consideration. If the Commission advocated by Senator Sir John Keane is set up, there should immediately be set up side by side with it another to inquire into the conditions such as I have stated in Switzerland, Sweden and Norway, where they turn to their electrical scheme to solve their difficulties, and where they have, to a very large extent, absorbed their surplus population into a special style of manufacture. That would be a very much better policy in this country than to set out to split up, or smash up, the super-efficiency factories we have in the rich grass lands.

It seems to me there are two or three particular interests concerned in the proposals made. The first, of course, is the State; the second the men to whom the land should be given, and the third the men to whom the land belongs. The whole thing resolves itself into a question whether the proposal made is an economic solution or not. The man with 15 or 20 acres of land can carry on at present and only do so on the supposition that the high protective tariffs which exist can be assumed to be permanent. These are necessary to secure prices. Where I live the price of new milk at the creamery at the present time is 3½d. When getting 3½d. per gallon for milk, it is absolutely certain that the farmers must depend on the rearing of calves in order to carry on. They must depend on the rearing of calves to pay their rates, annuities, and all the other charges. Consequently, taking these prices into account, it would seem to be a cruel thing to have a general subdivision of farms into 15 or 20 acres. Another question that arises out of this is that the country is mainly suitable for the production of live stock and live-stock products, such as butter and cheese. Whether the proposed subdivision on a large scale would be consistent with the rearing of live stock of all kinds is another matter that I think would be pertinent to the proposed inquiry.

With regard to the occupiers from whom the lands will be taken, one of these proposed acquisitions came under my notice lately in which it was proposed to give £12 an acre as compensation to the occupier, who was a purchased tenant. He had his lands purchased for, say, 20 years. Out of the £12 per acre which it was proposed to give him he was to redeem the remaining portion of the purchase money, so that he would have about £5 per acre left as compensation. If anything is calculated to create distrust and suspicion in the minds not only of the people affected in this way but in the minds of other farmers with similar holdings, it is that land should be confiscated in such a manner.

As regards the experience of Senator Sir John Keane in County Meath, I could quote an instance which would be far worse than that to which he referred. I may say that I am not at all hostile to the subdivision of lands. I think I may claim to have helped in the subdivision of 1,200 acres prior to the coming into power of either this Government or the previous Government. These 1,200 acres were sub-divided under the British régime and I can fairly claim that one farm has been sold and resold three or four times. If any Senator will come to the parish in which I live, he will see these 1,200 acres. If he wants to see "misery looking into the eyes of misery," he should come down to these divided lands. Some of it is good fattening land but most of it is dairy land. These people are not able to pay their annuities or rates or even the ordinary charges for subsistence. They have to live on what they can get out of the soil. From these experiences, I heartily support the motion for an inquiry. I think that all these matters would be suitable and pertinent for inquiry before subdivision is carried out on a largely-increased scale.

Having experience of this matter, I think that great credit is due to Senator Sir John Keane for bringing this motion forward. I think that a lot of people identified with the Government of the country are not really aware of the present position in respect of the division and subdivision of land. I could quote instances which would illustrate what I have to say but I do not like to mention names. About 15 years ago, there was a piece of land 10 or 15 miles from Dublin which was known as the "Free State" because it was so extensive. There were houses built on that land. The landlord got, perhaps, more than he was entitled to, as land had not fallen in price at the time. These ditch divisions to which Sir John Keane referred are almost levelled now. They are falling to pieces and for eight or nine years these tenants have not paid a penny in rent. I know another case in which we were acting, more or less, as agents in which land was divided and the people could neither graze nor stock it. They have not paid a penny of rent and they are laughing at the idea of how they managed it. When reference is made to rich land being turned into tillage, I may cite my own experience. I tilled 20 acres of rich land in the days of the war when tillage was compulsory. I put down 10 acres in wheat and 10 acres in oats. That was a great loss. The land was thoroughly unsuitable for tillage and it was converted from profitable grazing into unprofitable tillage. I know County Meath and I have a great deal of experience of the cattle raised there. I can bear out Senator Counihan's statement, that people with young stock look forward to selling them to Meath and Westmeath buyers when they reach a certain stage of maturity. As regards the change to wholesale tillage, I was surprised at my friend, Senator Comyn, being so emphatic, because on his rich land in County Clare there is no question of tillage at all. There there is some of the best fattening land in Ireland——

Clare fattening land will not do for tillage, but Meath land will.

To use that as an argument would be fanciful. I do not object to lands being divided up, or to the landless men, who are so much talked of, being made happy or comfortable. But I know of the case of a man, who has a nice cottage and an acre of land, with 30/- a week as wages. A big slice of land was divided up in his locality and, when approached, his answer to the inspector was that he would not take it, as he was better off with his 30/- a week than running the risk which his neighbours, who had got land, were running. He saw that his neighbours were in poverty and were looking for wages as labourers. That land is almost derelict now. It would, I think, be a wise thing for the Government, in their own interest, to do as they are asked to do in this motion. I know two other farms which the Land Commission had to scrap. There is no such thing as a possible profit unless this matter is adjusted, better arrangements made, and the land let at a cheap valuation, to give the people a chance. At the present time, it is hopeless to think that the Land Commission will succeed. A lot of this business of sending letters to the Department and to the Land Commission for the dividing up of farms is merely to gain cheap notoriety. When the land comes to be divided, it is likely to be years before there is any possibility of success. The Department can send their inspectors to those districts in which land has been divided, and they can ascertain the facts. Outside Templemore land was divided up. Those who went into the small holdings are very badly off and there is no possibility of improving their position, because they have nothing to sell. It is urgently necessary that this matter should be taken up even in the Government's own interest.

In dealing with a motion such as this, it is difficult to anticipate what is likely to emerge or what line of argument is likely to be pursued. There are, however, a few things on which one can always count. We can always feel assured that Senator Counihan will express the view, which he so frequently airs here, and which I have described, perhaps not quite fairly, as the "ranching mentality." Senator Sir John Keane approaches the question from a different angle. I have already expressed my appreciation of the sincerity and honesty with which Senator Sir John Keane approaches these questions, but there are always very definite indications that he is not living in 1934, but wants to continue to live in the period 1890-1914.

The good old days.

Whether I am right in that or not, I do not know. A mass of material, comprised in the writings of different economists and others interested in land distribution, could be quoted for the next two or three hours, and would deal adequately with all the arguments put forward by Senator Sir John Keane, Senator Counihan and others. There is an outstanding problem involved. I am not so absurd as to suggest that any of us, with all the wisdom, knowledge and care we can bring to bear upon the subject, can be definitely and permanently dogmatic as regards a line of policy. Policies have got to change according to the circumstances that operate, not only here but elsewhere. The outstanding thing in regard to this whole problem of land division is the human element involved. Senator Counihan and Senator Sir John Keane seem to overlook that very definite and fundamental problem. We have heard to-day that land division, as it has been carried out, has been faulty, if not a complete failure. We have heard a number of instances of people who were put on allotments having failed.

Senator Counihan mentioned the land in his own area. I know a good deal about the conditions under which Senator Counihan owns his land. There is a very anomalous position that I find before me every day in the Land Commission, and it is this: that, in spite of all the protests about the uneconomic nature of land here, in spite of the fact that we are hearing continuously that land is not paying and that nobody can make ends meet on it, I have found very few who are situated as Senator Counihan and his like are situated who are willing to come in and make an offer of this kind to the Land Commission: "I have 2,000 acres of land in one form or another; I find it is uneconomic to hold that amount of land; will you kindly take 1,500 acres or 1,700 acres of that land from me and divide it or do what you like with it?" There is land in the hands of people like that that we could resume without any difficulty.

They are hoping for a change of Government.

They are hoping for a change of policy in the Government.

Assuming that they got a change of Government.

The Leas-Chathaoirleach took the Chair.

A change of policy on the part of the Government.

I think I should be allowed to pursue my argument. However, let us assume that they got either a change of Government or a change of policy. I have stressed almost to the point of boredom in this House what I have observed and learned of the conditions of agriculture in other countries. I have observed the condition of the cattle trade and I have listened to the problems of the wheat-growing countries. Only this week I was talking to one of the most eminent men in the State of California. He gave me an insight into the agricultural position there, and he concluded by saying: "Well, whatever your problems are you are in clover as compared with what the position is at present in the State of California." Now what is the position with regard to the development of ranching in Ireland as we know it to-day, what was the condition of the people, and where have they gone? I have no need to tell members of the Seanad what the population of this country was before the Famine. Of course, I will be told by Senator Sir John Keane, perhaps, and by others, that they were in a state of poverty: that the standard of living was low. The standard of living was relatively low, I suppose, in a lot of other agricultural countries as well, but the fact was that these people were here, and the fact also is that in 1847, during the clearances and for the four years afterwards, there was more grain exported out of this country than would have kept everyone in health and in comfort in this country. We have got the inheritance of that. We have got the backwash of it and we are living through it. We will be living through it for quite a considerable time.

In 1931, 31,879 holdings in this country had a valuation of £3,641,632. That means that a little over 31,000 people had land to the value of over £3,500,000. At the same time, 314,810 people had holdings the valuation of which was £3,915,000. In other words, one-tenth of the population had the equivalent in valuation of holdings of the other nine-tenths. If anyone can argue that that is an equitable distribution of land in an agricultural country, then there is no sense in talking about land division. The average valuation at the moment of holdings under £15 is £5 15s. I have here, but I do not propose to read it, an analysis of the holdings of every county in the Free State showing the holdings under £15, under £50, under £100 and up to £300. I submit that the Land Commission policy of acquiring these lands and dividing them amongst the people who have no other means of earning a livelihood, and of settling these in economic units, is a sound policy. It is argued here that it is not sound. We have had the Land Commission engaged in the work of administration during the last ten or twelve years, but it is only now that we are hearing that it is unwise to divide land.

Well, I have heard more about land division within the last two years, ten times more than was ever spoken in the 10 or 12 years of the previous history of this country. Senator Counihan referred to the £12,000,000 worth of exports of cattle, and he pointed to the amount of imports of wheat. But there are other cereal crops that we import as well as wheat. Is it suggested that we cannot produce cereal crops here to replace these? If we take the imports of cereals from 1929, 1930, 1931 we find that maize represented £3,158,000 in 1929, that wheat represented £3,186,000, wheaten products £2,438,000, and maize products £459,000, making a total of £9,250,000 of cereal products against the £12,000,000—as a matter of fact, it was £13,000,000—in that year for cattle exports. Is it suggested then that we should continue indefinitely on the basis of producing cattle and of exporting our population? That is what it comes down to. These are the two factors that you have in it. You have the fact that you cannot export the population because other countries will not let them in, and, secondly, that you cannot find the markets that you did find for your cattle.

It is annoying to have to reiterate the various arguments that have to be made here on the economic conflict and the position of the cattle trade. The Minister for Finance dealt at some length with these questions, and that precludes me from going over the arguments again. Surely anybody who watches the activities of the Minister for Agriculture in Britain with his subsidy for the development of the beef trade in Britain, his attitude towards the other Dominions as regards imports of beef and other meat products, and his attitude to the Argentine and the rest, must realise, whether he likes it or not, that that market is not going to be what it was. It may exist to a limited extent, but only to a limited extent, and, in my opinion, to a diminishing extent.

It is true that in some cases where allottees have been put on the land they have not made good. That is not to-day's problem. I would submit that it is less a problem of to-day than seven or eight years ago. I saw whole territories divided under the last Government, and divided on a political basis, and none of those who got land made good. I am quite confident that if Senator Counihan examined into that he could tell, even better than I could, of such divisions. But the fact that one or two, or even a dozen, do not make good is no argument against the general principle.

What we are attempting to do in all the circumstances is to assimilate these people to economic holdings, to try and train them and educate them under an agricultural instructor to develop and work their land so that they will, at least, be able to provide for themselves on that land. That, strange to say, is the situation that they have found essential to develop in the United States, where you had wheat ranching and ranching of every type on the most intensive and extensive scale possible. They have come to the conclusion now that the security of their country, and the well-being of their citizens, definitely lie in getting homesteads with mixed farming. President Roosevelt and his associates in the Cabinet are now definitely out on that line of mixed agricultural development. That is their policy.

Senator Counihan might, from his experience in different counties, make an argument for the continuation of ranching. He quoted the case of his own employees, where he is paying wages to men to whom land has been given. I think that an explanation could be given for them. I do not propose to give that explanation here, but I believe that I could make a reasonably close guess at the reason. Senator Counihan lives in North County Dublin. Will he explain to me why there are people from North County Dublin who for years have been paying from £7 to £8 and £12 an acre for conacre?

What part of North County Dublin?

Very near the Senator's home. I propose that they shall pay it no longer. I propose that the land shall be taken and given to them, and that instead of paying £7 or £9 a year for conacre they will become allottees of the Land Commission. These people are paying that ruinous rack rent, a villainous rent, according to the Senator's valuation of rent, and they have been doing that for years. There are people around Rush who take land in that way and they have to pay £9, £10 and £12 for conacre, they have the cost of cultivating the land and of marketing the produce, and they have to live after doing all that. In spite of that, we are told that ranching is the only thing. I am speaking of what I know. I am giving facts. I may tell the House that I have a deliberate, set policy that in as quick a time as I can manage it there will be no single conacre farm in the County Dublin. The people who are paying that ruinous rent of £8 or £9 an acre per year will get holdings and be settled on that land as safely as any other allottees of the Land Commission.

Might I ask the Minister to inquire into the case of a farm that was recently divided by the Land Commission? I know that the inspectors came around the country canvassing small holders to take that land and that they refused to take it. That happened in part of the County Dublin.

I would like to get particulars of it.

I will give them to the Minister after the adjournment.

I would like to have them. It must be understood that the Land Commission inspectors will investigate everybody's claim.

Those small holders refused to take that land.

You will get exceptions to every case. I have told the House what the general position in the County Dublin is. The Senator knows that there are hundreds of men holding land under the conditions that I have described. He knows what they are paying for conacre and that the figures I have quoted are correct. I have in mind one farm of 220 acres. That brings in an income of over £1,000 a year to the owner, I am going to stop it.

Now, it may be thought that I am moving from the general position. Let me read what Mr. Commissioner Bailey said. I do not think that Mr. Commissioner Bailey was ever a Sinn Féiner or a Red. But let us see what he said in 1917:—

"Ireland at present occupies a position of great advantage in having almost a monopoly in the supplying of store cattle to the English and Scotch farmers, but the position is one of considerable danger. Should the restrictions on the import of live stock from Canada and the Argentine Republic be removed, as doubtless they would be, were it shown that the introduction of disease was no longer to be feared, a serious blow would be struck at the prosperity of the Irish cattle industry, and new economic conditions would have to be faced. Such a consideration would point to the desirability of resting the agricultural industry of the country on a wider and sounder basis than the mere breeding of cattle."

That is Commissioner Bailey in 1917. He also gives rather an interesting summary of the condition of holdings in the various years. The number of holdings between one and fifteen acres in 1841 constituted 81 per cent. of the entire land. In 1851, holdings between one and fifteen acres amounted to 49 per cent. It has been a steadily diminishing percentage since. Of course, during all these years the ranching system, which is of comparatively modern growth, has developed. We know why. We know the system that was pursued, a system of clearances. I think no one in Ireland needs to be told of the hardships behind that. Senator Sir John Keane refers to this matter as if the Department of Agriculture and the Land Commission were out on a deliberate, set policy to do a bad job and were incompetent. He suggests a commission. I suggest that we have a permanent Commission. I suggest that there is nothing done by the Land Commission or by the Department of Agriculture without the closest co-operation. I find that officials in the Department of Agriculture when we are discussing in what size the holdings ought to be in an area, what we need to do with a new allottee, what we need to do in the way of providing capital to enable him to carry on, come in and advise us on such things. We are fully conscious of the economic difficulties that may be created if we do not do a clean job. Remember, the same Land Commission and Department of Agriculture have been functioning for the last 10 or 11 years, without any of the harsh criticism you find here. I admit that there is a problem which requires constant attention. Do not think we are going through this very violent and very difficult transition period without having our eyes and our ears open in order to get all the advice we can. But we stand firmly to this, that with a quarter of a million people living on rocks, and thousands of acres not being worked, that that position has got to stop.

Before I leave the question of the size of holdings, I should point out that in France at present, holdings average 22 acres, and that 85 per cent. of the farms are under 25 acres in extent. In Belgium, which is about one-third of the area of Ireland, there are about 829,625 farms, with an average acreage of eight. It is true that we want a completely new education as regards agriculture, and a completely different outlook and change of mind as regards the type of development we want on the land. We are not going to get that overnight, whether a Fianna Fáil Government or a United Ireland Party Government is in power. The great snag and the great trouble about the whole position at present is, first, that people will not recognise the fact that things are different, and, secondly, that we are going through a transition period that requires the best brains and intelligence of the country to be working harmoniously together to bring about the change as quickly as possible. Senator Sir John Keane referred to the case of a man who had not paid his rates or his annuities. All I can say is that the small holders have paid, and that it is the large holders who have not paid. There would be very few who would not have paid but for the vicious campaign that went on against payment. That is a fact. There is this in the Land Commission policy that we are not finally vesting any of our allottees. I have laid it down rigidly since I went there, that people must make good before we finally vest, and where land is not worked properly we will resume. We will have created what one might call an economic factory of each allottee. If we create a 20-acre farm, put a house on it and make fences, all that will be there for someone, and the man who does not make good, who does not work the land or pay his annuities will have to quit. He has no right of tenure until finally vested. Do not forget that.

I do not propose to go into all the questions with regard to the growing of wheat and the relative use of the land. As Senator Sir John Keane very definitely pointed out, I am not an agriculturist. I cannot claim to express an opinion on that. I can only be guided in this matter by people who are experienced in their particular work. We know that land division is a difficult problem, and we know that those who have land do not want to part with it, however much they may complain about losing money. We know also that it is difficult to get the right type of allottee. We know that the whole conditions, the land wars and everything right down from the famine, have created a position which has to be lived down. But it has to be lived down. We have to face it that this is a question of human happiness, and we are doing the best we can to get the people to understand that if beef goes off, something must go on. I have been misquoted in some newspapers as saying that the beef trade was dead and damned, and would not come back. What I did say was that the beef trade, as we knew it, is dead and damned, and is not coming back. It is not coming back, as we know it. I think that is a reasonable statement.

Even if the economic war was settled to-morrow, no matter what you had, you are going to have quotas for meat in Great Britain, and you are not going to have the prices you enjoyed up to 1929. We need wheat. Have the owners of these big farms and these big holdings attempted to take the benefit of the wheat scheme? Has it not rather been politics, and have they not said: "This Government will not last, and we will not grow wheat, even though it pays us"? I know landowners, not of our way of political thinking, who have done remarkably well out of wheat and who are continuing to increase production. There are all sorts of other crops to be produced but, again, I speak not as an agriculturist. I have no right to speak as one. But one has the intelligence to follow things other than one's job, and I know that people have succeeded in making money in various things. What has been the attitude of a lot of people even, perhaps, against their judgment as business men? They have deliberately sat down and said: "No, we will do without this; it would be bad politics," just the same as they encourage people not to pay annuities and not to pay rates.

Senator Counihan is very much concerned about the position of the people in the Gaeltacht, what is going to happen them now that the market for their young cattle is gone. We have had the Gaeltacht as a problem. It is not a new problem, and in spite of the fact that up to 1929-30 the ground was available for young cattle we had to lose 25,000 emigrants from the Gaeltacht every year. You have that no longer. In other words, in ten years 250,000 emigrants had to quit. They cannot quit any longer. What you are going to face very definitely in the Gaeltacht is this: that those young people, who no longer can emigrate, and who see the best land in the country lying idle—because they look upon it as lying idle if they see only a few cattle on it, and a house every two or three miles—are not going to stand for that. They say we have a meagre supply of potatoes or root crops, or whatever we can secure from the rocks, while land lies there that could produce the best of food. That is the Government's problem. That is the problem to be met. There is no good talking to them about young cattle, because they point to the fact that when the young cattle trade was at its best they did not get a livelihood but had to emigrate.

Senator Parkmson referred to the position in Meath and Westmeath, and I appreciate that there is a certain point of view as regards the necessity for reasonably large acreages for stud farms and for breeding horses and so on. He explained to me in considerable detail privately the very definite difficulties there are with regard to the change over of land on which horses have been. I appreciate that. We have definitely laid it down in the Land Commission that where land is used for stud farms or for breeding special classes of cattle, or is used to the national advantage, that land will not be interfered with. I do not think I can say much more on this problem. I feel that we have a permanent Commission on the work, that there is the closest co-operation between the different Departments involved, and that anything in the way of acceptance of this motion would be, not acceptance of a vote of censure on the Government as such, but acceptance of a vote of censure on the Departments concerned, and that I do not propose to do. I have a wealth of other material, most of which would go a long way to substantiate what I have said, but it is all very much in the same key, and it all comes back to the point that we have a growing population. I am glad that we have a growing population. We have come to a transition period of intense difficulty, not for us alone, but for every country involved. Every Senator knows that. We are dealing with that as past. We propose to go on with the division of land on the basis on which we are at present working, and so long as we are in power, and until we know it is not a wise policy, we will continue on the lines we are going.

I would like to add a few words, because I was impressed by the rather fanciful illustration of Senator Parkinson, which was applauded by Senator Sir John Keane, regarding the grazing lands of Meath, Westmeath and Kildare, as giving the finishing touch to the broad co-operative activity of the small farmers in the west, the graziers in the midlands and the finishing land in Meath. This idea of national co-operation amongst cattle raisers in the business of cattle raising, might be understood and appreciated, and perhaps valued, if the value or the result of the co-operation were more fairly divided. I happen to have in front of me an official document dealing with the value produced in beef on an acre of land—one statute acre of good pasture. The statement reads this way: "Estimated cost of producing beef on grass lands, assuming that three cwts. live weight are produced on one statute acre of good pasture." I am not responsible for the figures. They are official and therefore, I take it, reliable. This was prepared in 1929 at a time when the cost of a bullock, 7½ cwts. live weight when placed on the pasture, was 36/- per cwt., or a total of £13 10s. The selling price of the bullock at 10½ cwts. live weight was 38/- per cwt., or a total of £19 19s. The value of the beef produced on the grass lands was thus £6 9s. I wonder whether it is fair co-operation to allot to the owner of the grass lands £6 9s. and to allot £13 10s. to the rest of the co-operating community—all these small farmers in the West who have co-operated in the production of this beast?

I think the fanciful picture of Senator Parkinson's co-operative activity would be more easily sustained if the final result to the large number of small farmers who are co-operating in this process were more advantageous as compared with the result to the small number of large farmers who are co-operating in the final process.

I think I quoted in this House once before comparative figures for the County Mayo and County Meath, both counties having very nearly equal areas of crops and pasture. This co-operative process that Senator Parkinson quoted might be more easily understood or discounted, when one learns that the total number of cattle on 612,000 acres of crops and pasture in Mayo, was 196,000, and in Meath, on 550,000 acres, was 213,000 cattle. But the total number of persons engaged was 160,000 in Mayo and in Meath 56,000. As to sheep, pigs and poultry, of course, Mayo was far and away more useful to the national economy than Meath. I think that the argument that this finishing process is the culmination of the co-operative organisation of the cattle raising industry would be more appealing if it were not in its results more a method whereby the owners of these finishing processes were able to take a very large proportion of the final profits, leaving the occupants of these smaller holdings, who are doing work in connection with the cattle raising, to divide amongst themselves a very small proportion of the final values.

I have very little to say in reply to the arguments on this motion. I will only say this in reply to the statements made by the Minister: At present I am a member of a Commission which is enquiring into the organisation of the Civil Service. According to the arguments put forward by the Minister, the fact that that Commission has been appointed is tantamount to a vote of censure on the Civil Service. Is not that the gist of the Minister's argument? He says that to institute an enquiry into the present policy of closer land settlement would be a vote of censure on the Land Commission and the Department of Agriculture. I have nothing more to say to that. I do despair of any solution of this question when that is the mentality of our rulers.

Leas-Chathaoirleach

Does the Senator withdraw the motion?

There is no object in pressing the motion. The Minister is the judge. There is his point of view. I am satisfied, having ventilated the matter, and, with the leave of the House, I beg to withdraw the motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
The Seanad adjourned at 6.10 p.m. until Wednesday, 22nd August, at 3 p.m.
Barr
Roinn