Committee on Finance. - Adjournment—Division of County Mayo Lands. – Dáil Éireann (12th Dáil) – Thursday, 9 May 1946

Committee on Finance. - Adjournment—Division of County Mayo Lands.

Mr. Blowick

I had certain questions on yesterday's Order Paper relating to the same locality. I felt I was compelled to put down those questions because of the peculiar method adopted in connection with land acquired by the Land Commission and distributed amongst various allottees. It was not the distribution that I was so much concerned with as the fact that certain people who should be entitled to allotments on these two estates did not get any land.

The first question I put to the Minister was:—

"To ask the Minister for Lands if he will state by what method the valuation of allotments is determined in cases of sub-division."

The Minister was in the Seanad yesterday and the Minister for Justice answered for him. I would like to get a clearer answer than the one I did get. Evidently the Minister was a bit perplexed by the way I worded the question, because it would seem that three different interpretations could be got from it. I tabled that question in order to find by what means a particular allotment of land is valued for the purpose of the poor law valuation before it is given to the allottee. I should like the Minister to explain that and let me know whether it is the officials of his Department who value the allotment or the officials of the General Valuation Office, under the Department of Finance.

The second question I put to the Minister was:—

"To ask the Minister for Lands if he will state the names of those who were allotted additions on the Fitzgerald-Kenney and Brennan estates in County Mayo; the acreage and valuation of the additions; and the valuations of the holdings of these allottees prior to the allotment of the additions."

The Minister refused to supply a certain part of the information I asked for in that question.

In the next question I asked the Minister:

"To ask the Minister for Lands if he will state the reasons why Martin Quinn, Thomas Murphy, Patrick Joyce, Michael Prendergast and Michael Mooney were not granted additions in the recent distribution of the Fitzgerald-Kenney and Brennan Estates in County Mayo."

In one particular case on the Brennan Estate a man who was entitled to a holding, because he was a herd or caretaker, got a holding of approximately 31 acres. That is all very well, but it seems a rather strange thing in a district where, among 37 land-holders, the highest valuation that I can find is £10. There are only four persons approaching the £10 valuation and that would leave 33 tenants, some having as low a valuation as £2 15s. 0d.

There is one particular case, that of Michael Prendergast. He is a married man and he has six children. He has a valuation of £3. He did not get an addition of land, although he is actually resident on the Fitzgerald-Kenney Estate. I spoke to some Land Commission officials about that and the reply I got was that this man sold an addition he got previously. Perhaps I misunderstood what they said, but I was told that this man never got an addition. That was his statement to me. He sold a portion of land by virtue of the terms of his father's will. He sold it in order to discharge a legacy due to one of his sisters under his father's will. If it was wrong for him to sell that land, why did the Land Commission give him permission to do so? If it was wrong for him to sell, they should not have given him permission to do so. The valuation of the piece of land sold is £2 15s. 0d. That would have left him with a total valuation of £5 15s. 0d. if he did not sell it. As I have said, he sold it in order to clear off a debt due under the terms of his father's will.

I submit that the Land Commission did wrong when they gave him authority to sell it. They should not allow sub-division. I have repeatedly stated here that the main purpose of the Land Commission should be to bring up uneconomic land-holders to a certain economic level and prevent sub-division of the holdings, such as happened in the old landlord days, resulting in the rundale system and the uneconomic plight of many land-holders along the western seaboard. Those are the particulars of Michael Prendergast's case.

Take the case of Martin Quinn, a man with £2 5s. valuation. He is the man who bought the land from Michael Prendergast some seven or ten years ago. He is a single man, middle-aged, about 40 years or so. He got no addition of land. There is one man in the locality with a valuation of £7. The Minister may say that he has not a £7 valuation. This man has got an addition of 32 statute acres, side by side with 31 acres. This man's son owns land, bringing the total valuation to £7. This particular farmer has as good as handed over the place to his son.

A man with £7 valuation has got an addition of 32 statute acres, which will leave his total valuation something like £15, while the man with £2 15s. valuation is by-passed. The married man with the six children is by-passed. Then there are three persons, Thomas Murphy, Michael Mooney and Patrick Joyce, with valuations round about £5, £5 10s., or £5 15s., and they are all by-passed. If that is not unfair distribution I do not know what it is. I should like the Minister to make a clear statement on this matter.

It is rumoured amongst those people —they told me about it, but I do not know whether it is true or not—that there was a plan originally drafted by the Land Commission to allot the land evenly among the tenants, bringing them all to a certain level, and then they would wait until further land became available for division. Is that true? Is it true that the original plan to give land to all of them, bringing them to a valuation which would amount to £6 13s. each, was scrapped and, if so, why was it scrapped? Was there such an original plan and, if so, what were the terms of it?

It seems a very strange thing that one man can get 35 acres and another 32 acres. One was a post office official, who should be debarred from getting lands. Another post office official in a nearby locality was debarred from getting an addition on the Moore estate, simply because he was a postal official. Is there a Land Commission regulation which prevents postal officials or people drawing salaries from Departments of State from getting additions of land? If so, why is it this man got 17 statute acres? I submit there has been very unfair discrimination in these cases.

The Minister replied to a further question, when I asked him whether the Irish Land Commission have in view the acquisition of additional land for the relief of congestion in the Newtown and Clogher areas of County Mayo. The Minister said: "The Land Commission have made preliminary investigations in regard to the acquisition or resumption by them of lands totalling 152 acres in the Newtown and Clogher areas, County Mayo." I wonder where these lands are. I reside in that area and I do not know any other land unless the demesne land of Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney. If the Minister goes into the valuation of that he will find it is so high that he will have a job to get anybody to take it. In passing I might mention that if paper is not too scarce in the Irish Land Commission, they might supply answers which are a little clearer to Parliamentary questions. Although my eyesight is good I find it difficult to read some of the typescript. I want to know why some people got a huge division of land while others were by-passed. I want to know why five men were turned down and did not get land. That is unfair discrimination. If 31 statute acres of Brennan's farm were considered good enough for a holding why did a man get 32 statute acres beside it, the land being of the same quality? It is good land and runs across the valley. Why did a post office official get 17 statute acres? I admit that he surrendered four on his old holding. Is there a regulation against that in the Land Commission? Frankly it is difficult on many occasions to follow their activities.

Minister for Lands (Mr. Moylan)

The Minister is not responsible for the selection of allottees, for the distribution of land or, within the regulations, as to how the Land Commission propose at any time to distribute it. I was not present in the Dáil yesterday when the questions were answered. Question 34 reads:

"To ask the Minister for Lands if he will state by what method the valuation of allotments is determined in cases of subdivision."

That question has a definite meaning and might be answered in a very few words. Presumably in putting down the question Deputy Blowick was not quite clear as to the exact information he needed. In order to clarify the position the word "valuation" might be used or accepted as forming part of his question and is answered very clearly. I do not know what lack of information there is in the answer. This is the answer:

"The Deputy's question is open to a number of interpretations. If by ‘valuation' he means ‘poor law valuation', such is determined by the General Valuation Office with reference to each individual parcel provided by the division of lands acquired by the Land Commission. If the information sought is the resale value of parcels on which the agreements for repayment of stipulated purchase moneys or advances are based, this is obtained by an acre-by-acre survey of the land. Or the Deputy may be concerned with the comparative value of parcels as allotted to one applicant as against another in somewhat similar circumstances. This aspect of the matter is governed by general land settlement policy, conditioned by local and personal factors, and having as the primary aim the creation of the greatest number of suitable economic holdings possible."

I think it would be a very cranky and unreasonable person who would think such an answer inadequate to the question put down by the Deputy. Question 35 was as follows:

"To ask the Minister for Lands if he will state the names of those who were allotted additions on the Fitzgerald-Kenney and Brennan Estates in County Mayo; the acreage and valuation of the additions; and the valuations of the holdings of these allottees prior to the allotment of the additions."

This was the reply:

"An area of 125a. 2r. 5p. on the Fitzgerald-Kenney Estate, Record No. S.7508, acquired by the Land Commission under L.A. 1923 was divided in March last into 11 parcels and all allotted to tenants of uneconomic holdings.

Three migrants' holdings and the resumed holding of Mrs. C. Brennan on Fitzgerald-Kenney Estate, Record No. C.D.B. 155, together with a migrant's holding on the McDermott Estate, Record No. C.D.B. 58, were simultaneously divided amongst 14 persons, 13 of these being tenants of uneconomic holdings and one being a former employee on the Brennan holding. Of the 25 parcels allotted, 20 were given by way of addition to existing holdings, one was in exchange for a portion of an existing holding surrendered by the allottee and four were new holdings in exchange...."

The purpose of the Land Commission in dealing with land is to provide as many economic holdings as possible. Here you had a limited quantity of land and practically an unlimited quantity of congestion. The 152 acres were divided between 14 people. The amount of land that could be allotted to each of these people could not be very large. On the two holdings there were 24 additions, four new holdings were given in exchange, and one worker on the estate was given a piece of land. I have spoken here in regard to the recent Land Act. I pointed out to the House that there were certain categories of people, applicants for land, who could be considered by the Land Commission. The first category is those people who lose their employment because an estate has been acquired by the Land Commission. They have a prior claim to any other applicant. I explained my personal view in regard to that system of priority. I told the House that, in my experience, men employed on estates acquired by the Land Commission and proposed to be divided, should be compensated by some other method than by giving them land. Numbers of them have made good, but it is my personal experience that most of them do not make successful farmers. But it is the law. They have priority over every other claimant. The man employed on the Fitzgerald-Kenney estate had priority over all other claimants. He got a holding, according to the law, and according to the regulations of the Land Commission, and there can be no argument about it.

Mr. Blowick

Is it on the Fitzgerald-Kenney estate?

Mr. Moylan

Call it Fitzgerald-Kenney estate or Brennan's estate. I have not the intimate knowledge, acre by acre, that the Deputy has. All the rest of the estate, all the land that was to be divided, was given as additions to their holdings to uneconomic holders. Has the Deputy any grievance because that was done?

Mr. Blowick

The Deputy's grievance is contained in Question 36, if the Minister will answer it.

Mr. Moylan

I will try, certainly. The Deputy's question reads:—

The applications of the persons mentioned by the Deputy were considered, but the Land Commission were satisfied on the information before them concerning their circumstances and the circumstances of other applicants, and having regard to the area of land available for division, that it was not possible to allot parcels to these people. When there is a limited amount of land and when there is an unlimited number of applicants, surely somebody must be out of luck. The Deputy does not believe that I or the Land Commission can work the miracle of the loaves and the fishes. There is a certain limited amount of land. Every man who got a holding, other than the man employed on the estate who was entitled to get priority, was a congest, lived on an uneconomic holding and had an addition made to his holding, as is good practice, which the Deputy should know and does know.

Everything was done according to law, according to regulation, and, in this particular case, no matter what difficulty I am in about any other matters, I am standing on quite firm ground. The leader of a political Party in this House, whatever other qualities he may lack and however poor his Party, should at least have some glimmer of an idea of political strategy. He should select a field where there is some cover, some protection, and the possibility of a safe retreat, but Deputy Blowick seems to have never heard of political strategy. He selects a field where there is neither cover nor protection, and from which he must, at best, beat an ignominious retreat.

Mr. Blowick

Oh, I do not think so.

Mr. Moylan

Every single acre of the land divided was given to uneconomic holders as additions to their holdings.

Mr. Blowick

There were 32 acres given to the secretary of the Fianna Fáil club.

Mr. Moylan

That was perfectly right. He had priority over all the others.

Mr. Blowick

So much so that he got an acre more than the man who was entitled to a full holding, Patrick Collins.

Mr. R. Walsh

Was he an uneconomic holder?

Mr. Blowick

Certainly. What about the £7 valuation farm this other man had?

Mr. R. Walsh

Was he?

Mr. Blowick

It is a shame that Deputy Walsh should try to defend giving a £7 valuation man 32 acres and by-passing other applicants.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

If Deputy Blowick does not want to listen to the Minister——

Mr. Blowick

I am sorry, I apologise.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy must allow the Minister to conclude.

Mr. Flanagan

Surely it was not necessary for the Minister to lose his temper.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

There is no necessity for Deputy Flanagan to interfere.

Mr. Blowick

He is trying to throw oil on the troubled waters.

Mr. Moylan

Deputies will have to wait a long time to see me lose my temper, but so long as Deputies proceed to take each other's scalps, my own is quite safe. The procedure adopted in this case needs no defence. I am amazed that the Deputy should think there was anything wrong. He mentions one particular man who did not get a holding. He got a holding from the Land Commission and was given a loan and a grant to build a house.

Mr. Blowick

And was permitted to sell it.

Mr. Moylan

And because of his circumstances afterwards he had to sell the house. Are we to give every individual a piece of land and build a house on it for him at public expense, and, when he fails to make a go of it, to give him another holding? I think that is a ridiculous argument.

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 9 May 1946