asked the Minister for Lands and Agriculture whether he would be prepared to amend Section 31 (1) (e) of the Land Act, 1923, so that the term of years mentioned therein for the reinstatement of evicted tenants should be extended for a period of sixty years, instead of twenty-five years, so as to cover all possible claims of ejectment from holdings since the date of the famine, and, if so, if he can state how soon legislation on these lines will be introduced.
CEISTEANNA—QUESTIONS. ORAL ANSWERS. - REINSTATEMENT OF EVICTED TENANTS.
The proposal in the question is that all possible claims of ejectment from holdings since the year 1843—five years before the Famine—should be dealt with. There are certain difficulties in the way of this proposal, but with the necessary legislation, and a sufficiently large and well equipped Army, they might be overcome.
In the year 1843 there were about 800,000 tenants. At present there are about 400,000 tenants and tenant purchasers, of which about 100,000 are tenants and 300,000 tenant purchasers.
Under the Land Act of 1923 the Land Commission have power to acquire compulsorily any land of any kind anywhere in the Saorstát for the relief of congestion. By exercising these powers it will be possible for the Land Commission to provide economic holdings for (1) the greater number of existing congests; (2) a number of labourers under Section 31 (1) (d); (3) a number of evicted tenants under Section 31 (1) (c), and (4) a limited number of landless men under Section 31 (1) (f).
The Deputy's policy as outlined in the question would entail (a) the eviction of a very large percentage of existing tenants and tenant purchasers; (b) the reclamation of a considerable area of the Irish Channel, so as to make more land available; and (c) an amendment to the 1923 Act so as to exclude all labourers, landless men, and a very large number of existing congests.
If the Deputy will submit proposals dealing with these difficulties and in addition, the possibility that there is an equally good case for dealing with evictions before 1843, I will undertake to discuss these proposals with the Minister for Industry and Commerce and the Minister for Defence, and let him have our views.
What about the Boundary or the Minister for External Affairs?
I would like to inform the Minister that I was caught out by this question all right. A fellow-Deputy asked me to put it down in my name, and I did not read it.
Arising out of the Minister's reply to that question, I would like to ask him if in distributing lands which will become available for distribution, preference will be given to evicted tenants or to the descendants of evicted tenants, in cases where they have the same qualifications as other applicants, as for instance, where they are landless men or uneconomic holders?
Mr. HOGAN
I should say it would be the policy of the Land Commission to give preference to the representatives of evicted tenants, as against landless men, but not as against uneconomic holders.
I think the Minister misunderstands my question. What I want to know is, where an applicant happens to be an evicted tenant or the son of an evicted tenant and an uneconomic holder at the same time, if he will get a preference before the man who has only the qualification of being an uneconomic holder?
Mr. HOGAN
I think the distinction is too subtle. I am not in a position to answer. I do not think that case will arise.
There are several such cases.