Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Friday, 12 Aug 1927

Vol. 20 No. 20

PUBLIC BUSINESS. - ADJOURNMENT DEBATE—LETTING OF GOVERNMENT FARM AT LUSK.

The motion for the adjournment is automatic; that is, that the Dáil stands adjourned until next Tuesday at three o'clock.

My question on the adjournment is in relation to the farm in the hands of the Government. That farm is situated at Lusk. It was, heretofore, used as a remount farm by the British military. It has been used, or, as I might say, abused by the Government, even if it is a fine site for a stud farm.

The Parliamentary Secretary for Lands referred us to Article 11 of the Constitution, which limits the powers apparently vested in the Dáil and in this Government, to let this land for a term exceeding ninety-nine years. I think it is information to us to hear that there is a farm in the County Dublin that this Government cannot lease for a longer term than ninety-nine years. I wonder if that little farm at Lusk is painted red on the map?

The subject matter of my question, this farm, is situated between the villages of Lusk and Rush. In Rush there is a population of 2,500 people, living upon what at one time was drifting sand. They are little land holders with holdings running from half an acre to seven or eight acres. He is a big farmer in Rush who owns seven or eight acres. There are no people in the world more industrious or who turn more out of the soil than the small farmers of Rush. These people came on this land two years ago and offered to take this farm at £3 an Irish acre. That offer was refused. I wonder if the Parliamentary Secretary has been advised by Clanricarde or his successors that the rent that was offered by these people was too low? I wonder was he advised that the rent of £3 an Irish acre for this land in County Dublin, offered by these hard-working people, was too low? I would like to know if the Government, who had the same land tilled afterwards and who grew some corn on it, but left the corn there to rot, made £3 an Irish acre out of it? I do not know whether this Dáil has the powers or not——

Let us has the powers.

Well, then, I hope that the appropriate Department will exercise those powers and transfer this land to the Land Commission for sub-division amongst these men. These men are not importees into that place. They are not men who have given up big ranches elsewhere and come here to a ranch in Dublin. They are natives of the County Dublin. They know how to carry on agriculture, and to carry it on scientifically. This Article deals with the public utility of land. I submit that this land could not be better used than by giving it to men who can cultivate it, and who know how to cultivate it. I suggest that the Parliamentary Secretary should take the appropriate action to stop this land being let, aye, even for a stud farm. It is not a hunting ranch we want in County Dublin. We want homes for the people. The people in Lusk want to work this farm. There are plenty of ranches owned by gentlemen in the County of Dublin who patronise the hunt. Let them turn their farms into stud farms. I think I am right in stating that the mansion attached to these lands is such that to make it a stud farm would cost as much as to build new stables.

I strongly urge that this land be taken over by the Land Commission. I want to draw particular attention to the last sentence in my question, namely, that it be let to them at an economic rent and not at £5 per Irish acre, the price at which land was offered to cottiers and smallholders in the parish of Finglas by the Land Commission as a gift for a cow-park. We want it at an economic rent, and as the Government is the owner it should, I suggest, set an example by letting the land at an economic rent. I hope that the Government will not take their headline from the Clanricardes and their agents, and the Dunravens, who man the Land Commission at the present time.

I share with Deputy Belton the disability of not being a native of the County Dublin but, speaking on behalf of the natives of the County Dublin, I should like to say——

Does the Deputy say that I am not a native of the County Dublin?

I thought the Deputy boasted a little while ago of coming from the County Longford?

Let us hear about Lusk.

At any rate, I want to speak on this occasion on behalf of the natives of Rush and Lusk district, in the County Dublin. I do not associate myself with all of Deputy Belton's arguments, but I do think that very little has been done for this district, in which there are a large number of holdings of barely economic size. I believe there was one estate in that district that the Land Commission proposed to acquire compulsorily. The owner of the estate offered land in County Cavan, with the result that the Cavan land was taken and that the Dublin land was not made available for the people living in the locality whose holdings required to be enlarged. I will give the Parliamentary Secretary the name of the estate if he wishes to have it. I believe that if this farm at Lusk was the property of a private owner it would have been compulsorily acquired under the Land Act. Why the State should be immune from the burdens that are placed on private owners I cannot see. With all deference to the quotation that the Parliamentary Secretary made from the State Lands Act, I do not think that such land is exempt from the operations of the Land Act of 1923, and I think it would be open to the Land Commission to come in on this land and take it, since it is in the market, since nobody will be dispossessed and since nobody will be injured. Surely a beginning should be made there. I do not want to reinforce my case by repeating it, and am anxious to leave the Parliamentary Secretary ample time to reply. I say it is a case for further inquiry, and for the taking of no action at present. It would be wrong, I think, to let this land on a long lease without regard to any amendment that may be made in the State Lands Act, and without regard to the provisions of the Land Act of 1923.

Deputies have put two questions to me for answer: (1) What are our powers as regards the taking over of this property; and (2) if we have the power, is it advisable or expedient to take it over? Deputy Belton is very far at sea in suggesting that the reason why the Land Commission is not taking over these lands is because they are prevented by some extraneous power. These lands were formerly vested in the British Government, but after the Treaty they passed to the Government of Saorstát Eireann and are now under the control of the Oireachtas. The Oireachtas, for its own protection, passed Article 11 of the Constitution, which limits the power of the Government in alienating land to a period of 99 years. It is open to the Dáil and the Oireachtas to change at any time that Article of the Constitution without adverting to any outside power. This Dáil has absolute authority over that. It can change that Article of the Constitution any time it likes, but until that is done the Land Commission has not the power to take over the land.

Assuming that that Article will be altered and that some Government with Deputy Belton's point of view is in control in this House, then the question will arise as to whether it is expedient or not to do so. The policy pursued by the present Government is to get the best price available for the property of the State when it is rented. This property as I say was formerly let as a stud-farm. The most valuable parts of the holdings consisted of buildings and a considerable amount of money has been laid out in making the property suitable for a stud-farm. If the property is cut up into small holdings, it will mean that these buildings will probably go to waste. That is a very serious result for any Government to contemplate. At the moment the whole question hangs on Article 11 of the Constitution, and until that is changed there is no good in discussing the question any further.

Are we to understand that at the moment the Land Commission has not power to acquire those lands or that the Department has not power to transfer these lands to the Land Commission because of Article 11 of the Constitution?

Yes. The position is that I cannot transfer them for more than 99 years, and the Land Commission cannot take a less interest than a freehold interest in land.

I presume that that implies that the farm cannot be subdivided? You take the position that the policy is not to do anything with the property that may destroy the amenities of it?

The point is that the Land Commission cannot take a lesser interest than a freehold interest. We cannot give them a freehold interest and therefore the Land Commission cannot touch the lands at all.

Then the position is that this Article must be altered before the Land Commission can do anything?

That is right.

And the same applies to similar farms—the Collinstown Aerodrome farm and the farm at Tallaght and Baldonnel?

Might I ask by way of supplementary question is it proposed that the appropriate department will take the action necessary to make these lands available for sub-division among uneconomic holders and landless men?

I think that the other very important question will have to be decided before that question will be in in order.

Which other question?

As to who will be on these Benches in control of these departments.

Will the Parliamentary Secretary say, in view of the fact that we have had so many amendments to the Constitution, whether it is possible or impossible to have Article 11 amended to meet this particular case?

That is not a question for me to answer.

The Dáil adjourned at 3.40 p.m. to Tuesday, 16th August, at 3 p.m.

Top
Share