On the Adjournment, Deputy Cafferky is raising a matter arising out of Question 45 on yesterday's Order Paper.
Adjournment Debate—County Mayo Lands.
Yesterday afternoon Deputy Commons and myself addressed the following question to the Minister for Lands:
"To ask the Minister for Lands if he is aware that the farm, containing 207 acres, situated at Cottage, Ballyhaunis, County Mayo (More O'Ferrall estate), the property of Hubert Treston, was put up for sale by public auction on 16th October, 1946, if he will state whether this land was sold; if so, the name of the purchaser, and also whether he will take steps to acquire same immediately for the relief of local congestion."
The Minister's reply was:—
"I am aware that this farm was put up for sale last month and I understand from Press reports that it has been sold to a solicitor in trust for a client. Following upon previous questions by the Deputy and by Deputy Commons in May last, the Land Commission had noted this case for inquiry in due course as is their usual practice; but it is not their practice to interfere with public auctions, nor do they propose to be moved by agitations and intimidation of the type which has developed in this case."
A similar question, in relation to the same holding, was addressed to the Minister for Lands on the 28th May last. The reference is Vol. 101, column 884 of the Dáil debates. The following is the question and the Minister's reply:
"Mr. Cafferky asked the Minister for Lands if it is the intention of his Department to acquire for distribution among the local congested tenants the lands formerly held by the late James Tristan on the More O'Ferrall estate at Logboy, Ballyhaunis.
Minister for Lands (Mr. Moylan): The question appears to relate to the lands of Cottage, County Mayo, owned by the representatives of James Tristan, deceased. The Land Commission have no proceedings for acquisition in this case, but a note has been taken of the matter."
We received that reply on the 28th May last. The Minister, in his reply to the question that was asked yesterday, gave us to understand that it is the practice of the Land Commission in matters like this always to move expeditiously. Yet, notwithstanding the fact that this was brought to his notice last May, we find that, as far as we are aware, no move has been made as far as the Land Commission is concerned or as far as the Minister is able to tell us, unless it has been made within the last few days. This holding of land consists of 207 acres. It has been untenanted. The present owner does not live there. I understand he is a Professor in the University in Cork. This land has been worked, grazed and cultivated in conacre by the tenants. Without it the tenants could hardly survive. They would have to close their doors and go away. These 207 acres are part of the More O'Ferrall estate. If these tenants had not worked and cultivated that land during the war we would have had no food production out of it unless the Land Commission had stepped in, as they did elsewhere, under a compulsory tillage Order. But due to the good husbandry of the local tenants and their desire to cultivate and use this land for the benefit of the people, a thing that they have been doing during the past 20 years and upwards, they have kept this land with a "body" in it. One would expect that, as it is surrounded by small tenant farmers, some of them with valuations of 30/- and even lower, an agitation would have broken there many years ago. When Fianna Fáil was at the height of their glory, telling the people "the bullock for the road and the land for the farmer" one would have expected that these tenants would have taken advantage of a new Party coming forward looking for power and would have picked up with that Party and started an agitation. But they did not do so because they were law-abiding citizens and did not desire to trespass on their neighbour, notwithstanding the fact that, by holding on to the land, he was so to speak depriving them of their livelihood, and notwithstanding the fact that they were paying heavy rent for the conacre that they got. Yet they never made one move until it was well known to the tenants that he was about to dispose of his holding, when they believed that they were justified and right.
They asked their representatives to make representations to the Minister and to the Department of Lands, and that we did in a constitutional way. We were given to understand by the Minister on the 28th May, 1946, that he would note the matter that was brought to his notice in this House and would bring it to the notice of his Department, and to his commissioners in the Land Commission to take steps to acquire this land for the tenants. That the Minister did not do.
When Mr. Hubert Treston put this up for sale Deputy Commons and myself took the responsibility of visiting the Minister's Department. I called specially to see if I could meet the Minister and was given to understand by the Minister's private secretary that the Minister was on sick leave at that time. I met his private secretary and I was brought to see other officials in the Department. I consulted with them and informed them of the advisability of taking steps to acquire this land and not allow anyone to purchase it. I say that notwithstanding the fact that the Minister will tell me to-night that whether anyone has purchased it or not the Land Commission has still the power to acquire it. I know very well that the Land Commission would be very reluctant to acquire land from a new purchaser, from the man who bought this holding of land. That shows that the Land Commission had not inspected it beforehand. If they had they would naturally have notified the purchaser that if he did purchase it he would know that at any moment the Land Commission could step in and take it. If this land is now sold, as it is supposed to be, the tenants of that area have lost their only opportunity, their only chance of solving the problem of congestion unless they are taken out of that particular area and migrated to the Midlands. There is no need for me to tell the Minister what it is going to cost to move those tenants to the Midlands. It is going to cost some thousands of pounds. They are going to be taken away from their environment, from the locality and the county that they love so much and are going to be placed perhaps among hostile neighbours, placed on land in a locality where there are landless men who will rightly feel that they have just as much right to that land as any men from County Mayo.
Perhaps the men from Mayo, when migrated, may have to receive police protection. Yet, on this very doorstep in the middle of the townland of the parish of Bekan, we find this farm of 207 acres being offered for sale by Mr. Hubert Treston. Due notice of the circumstances was given to the Minister, almost a year's notice, but we find that due to laziness or for some other reason, he has failed to bring to the notice of his Department or of his officials concerned, the necessity for acquiring, inspecting and revaluing this land with the intention of taking it over when the opportunity would arise.
The tenants in that locality have been told that the land was in the hands of the Land Commission and that they had no need to fear. They were told that the Land Commission would see that their problems would be solved. I cannot see how their problems can be solved now, and I should like to hear whether the Minister is prepared to acquire the farm from the gentleman who has bought it. I am, personally, of the opinion that he is very reluctant to do so and I do not believe that he will do so, if this gentleman who has acquired it will work and cultivate the land in accordance with the policy laid down by the Government. I am not out to deprive any man, irrespective of race or creed, of his right to acquire and cultivate any land, provided the exercise of that right does not militate against the superior interests of the tenants in the locality wherein the land is situated. I feel that the tenants have a superior right to any individual or group of individuals, a right far before that of any man, no matter what his connections may be or what foundations he may have. I maintain that in a congested area such as this the tenants should first receive the sympathetic consideration of the Minister. That has not happened in this case.
The Minister may tell me that neither he nor the Land Commission will be intimidated by an agitation such as has now taken place in that area. That may be so. This State may be capable of expending out of the funds which the taxpayer has subscribed a sufficient amount of money annually to maintain a large police force such as there is in the locality at the moment, a police force which is doing very much the same thing as was done in the days of the land agitation 50 years ago—protecting the grabber and suppressing the moral rights of the tenants, whatever about the legal aspect of it. It is all very well to draw up legal codes, but legal codes should bear some relation to recognised standards of morality and to the rights of tenants in cases such as this.
The Minister may say that Deputy Commons and Deputy Cafferky are setting a very bad precedent in encouraging the tenants to do what they have done in this case. I want to tell the Minister that neither Deputy Commons nor myself in any way regret anything we have done or any steps we have taken to maintain the rights of the tenants. We have acted constitutionally; we have acted strictly in accordance with the law. We have done our utmost to bring home to the Minister the necessity of acquiring this land. Seeing that constitutional means have failed, seeing that it was impossible to persuade the Minister to acquire this land and divide it amongst the tenants, seeing that he was far more interested in defending the man who purchased the land than in the rights of the tenants in that area, is it any wonder that the people are losing faith in constitutional means? The Minister may tell us that he believes in the principle of free sale. It may be alleged that we are against free sale. We are not. I am as much in favour of the principle of free sale as any man, but we do object to any man coming in from an outside district, or even a man in the same locality, purchasing a large holding such as this in the midst of congested areas where the tenants are clamouring for that land, especially having regard to the fact that these tenants worked and cultivated this farm during the emergency when the production of food was so necessary.
I should like to know if the gentleman who sold this farm would have cultivated it as these tenants did during the days when food production was so necessary. I can assure the Minister that if he thinks he will defeat the tenants of the locality, in which this agitation has taken place, his efforts will have the same fate as those of the Black and Tans in the case of the Ballinavilla estate across the river, efforts which were later carried on by the Gárda under the Fine Gael Government and, subsequently, under the Fianna Fáil Government. The tenants were maltreated, people were kicked and women's arms were broken, but notwithstanding all that, the tenants fought on and won eventually. The tenants in this case will fight on and win also. I want to say that the tenants are law-abiding citizens, but the Minister by his reactionary policy as head of the Department and by his laziness or reluctance to take the necessary steps to have this land acquired for the tenants, has compelled the tenants to do what they are doing now and has compelled their public representatives to stand by them. We shall continue to do so until the Minister is finally compelled to acquire and allocate this land amongst the congests in the locality.
Mr. Commons rose.
The Minister must get ten minutes to reply.
On Wednesday, 29th May, 1946, as reported in column 1035 of the Dáil debates, I addressed the following question to the Minister for Lands:—
"To ask the Minister for Lands if he is aware that about 40 tenants in the townlands of Gorrane, Johnstown and Lavellyroe, Ballyhaunis, County Mayo, More O'Ferrall estate, are living on uneconomic holdings, the average of the valuations being £5; if he is further aware that 450 acres of land, the property of Hubert Treston, The Cottage, Ballyhaunis, have been untenanted for a number of years and if he will consider acquiring same for the relief of these tenants."
I received the following reply from the Minister:—
"The Deputy's question appears to refer to the lands of Cottage owned by the representatives of James Treston, deceased. The Land Commission have no proceedings for the acquisition of these lands but the Deputy's representations have been noted for consideration."
When that question was put down, a week following a similar question by Deputy Cafferky, we thought that the Land Commission would have taken some action in this matter. You can imagine our surprise when we were notified by the people in this locality that this farm was being put up for public auction on the 16th October. Immediately on receiving that notification, I wrote to the Land Commission. I wrote on Friday, September 20th, and on Monday, September 23rd, I wrote a personal letter to the Minister and telephoned to the Office of the Land Commission in Merrion Street. I explained the situation to them and how necessary it was that this land should be taken over for the relief of the tenants. On Friday, September 27th, I tried to get in touch with the Minister by telephone from Balla, County Mayo. I was informed he was on sick leave. I spoke to his private secretary who said he would place the matter before the Minister and acquaint him of the facts.
Notwithstanding all that, the land was put up for auction and sold to a gentleman who could afford to pay £2,500 for it, even though there were 40 tenants in the locality with valuations ranging from 30/- to £6 5s. 0d. These tenants lived in a circle completely surrounding this farm, none of them more than 700 yards from the land, but their interests were sacrificed so that the man with the money could come in and buy the land. This happened notwithstanding the fact that in the debate on the Vote for Lands on Thursday, 11th April, the Minister, as reported in Volume 100, columns 1882-3, said:—
"It is right that that security of tenure should be perpetuated and that a man should be able to go into the market and sell the farm which is his own—if he cannot do that, there is no security of tenure—irrespective of the size of the farm and irrespective of where it is. But there is, as we know, a certain amount of land speculation and the Dáil will have to make up its mind. The representatives of the people will have to decide how far such a scheme of things can be approved and how far such a scheme of things can be tolerated.
I know of cases where individuals have bought ten, 12 or 15 farms, and it has been argued to me, and it is true, that those people are working them perfectly, and to the fullest extent. I hold the personal view that, even so, it is wrong that that land should be permitted to accumulate to that extent in the hands of individuals. The man who has purchased 15 farms because as a result of activities in another sphere he has been able to accumulate their price has brought about what I consider to be economic eviction."
What a great change there has been since the Minister made that statement ! If he did not approve of that then, why did he not introduce some measure, in his capacity as Minister for Lands——
I must call on the Minister to reply. He must get ten minutes in which to reply, and the Deputy has gone over his allotted time.
Why did the Minister not ask the Dáil for permission to stop speculative buying? In conclusion, I tell him that any action we have taken we will stand over and that the agitation started there will be continued elsewhere in Mayo, because the speculative buyer must be kept out and he will be kept out of Mayo, irrespective of what the consequences are.
I had the idea that matters are raised on the adjournment because of the inadequacy of the answer given to a question on the Order Paper. It seems to me that on the question asked yesterday by Deputy Cafferky I gave him the fullest information and a complete answer. Deputy Commons has quoted a statement of mine from the Dáil debates. Everything I said then I still believe. I believe it is not only a correct and true statement of Government policy but one which will have the approval of every decent-minded man in the country. If a man has a farm and is not permitted to sell it in the public market, then there is no security of tenure.
Deputy Cafferky mentions the fact that, on 28th May, a question was raised about this farm for the first time. He says that owing to the laziness, incompetence and weakmindedness of the Minister no action was taken in regard to the matter raised by him in the question. The farm was sold, I understand, in October. In July the Land Commission asked their inspectors in Mayo to make a preliminary report on the farm concerned—five or six weeks after the question was put down. Neither the Land Commission nor any other Department of State can drop all the work it has to do and immediately set out to obtain information or take particular action because a Deputy has asked a question in the House. Because that question was asked in the House and because representations were made, within a few short weeks the Land Commission asked for and received a preliminary report in regard to this farm. I know that there is congestion, and bad congestion, in the area.
Has the Minister got the report?
It is the main purpose of the Land Commission to try to do away with congestion and to relieve it everywhere, but the Deputy would need to remember one thing: the congest is generally a poor man, poor in this world's goods, and, above all, for the poor man the only protection and only help is the law. When the Deputy urges that the law should be broken, he is not helping the poor man; he is hurting him.
Whom is the law protecting now?
The grabber.
The Land Commission, in deference to public opinion expressed in this House, made a preliminary examination of the farm concerned. A preliminary examination, particularly in congested areas, is the first step towards the acquisition of the land for the relief of congestion. The Land Commission was not permitted to operate in the normal way in regard to the land in County Mayo. That will not prevent the Land Commission from doing its duty to the poor people who live in the county. Deputy Cafferky has rightly anticipated my statement and I say definitely that no Deputy and no man from Mayo will intimidate the Land Commission or me.
The Dáil adjourned at 10.30 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Friday, 8th November, 1946.