Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 8 Jun 1948

Vol. 111 No. 4

Committee on Finance. - Vote 52—Lands (resumed).

On the adjournment of the House last Thursday night, I was replying to a point raised by Deputy Flanagan with regard to evictions for non-payment of annuities. I dealt with the point fairly fully, but I would like to add that we must take a very stern view of defaulting annuitants, as those annuities not paid by land owners must be met by the ratepayers of the particular county in which they reside. The county council collects them in the form of rates and pays them into us, and if we want to be honest and straight by those who always work and do their best to pay their rates, we must see that we make their burden as light as possible. However, the Land Commission will regard very leniently any case that comes to their notice where it is through genuine poverty, perhaps through hard luck or some other particular circumstances beyond the farmer's control, a man has fallen into arrears. We will not act in a tyrannical way with any person and each case will be examined on its merits. At the same time, I must say that our experience has been that the vast majority of defaulters could make a better effort to meet the demands if they just wished to put their best foot forward.

Deputy Collins complains of delay in the division of land. I am aware of that myself, but I have not had time to go into each particular case. In some cases it may be due to carelessness or to something beyond control. Whatever delays took place in the past, Deputies will not have cause to complain of such delays in future, save in exceptional cases outside our control.

Several Deputies, including Deputy Beegan, wanted to know the amount of land available for acquisition. Unfortunately, there is no prophet in the Land Commission at present. The amount there is varies very much. Land will become available for acquisition in ten years' time that is well worked and which it would not be desirable to take over to-day. No one can foretell or make an accurate or even a fair guess at the amount of land available. There is no shortage of land for acquisition purposes or for the purpose of resumption and if we want to go ahead we can do so. There is plenty of land we can take over and if we want land on a big scale we can take it over. That does not leave me in a position to state the actual acreage. I know the acreage is big—it could go up to 500,000 acres, I suppose, but that is nothing final.

My own guess would be that it would be up to 500,000 acres, and I think that guess is reasonably near the mark.

Deputy Beegan asked if ex-employees will be provided for when an estate is divided. They will. When we take over a farm, or an estate, on which people are in whole-time employment we are knocking them out of their employment. We cannot just throw them out on the roadside. In some cases, those employees may be pretty well advanced in years and, therefore, may find it difficult to get alternative employment. They will always be considered. They are on the priority list, and there will be no change so far as that is concerned.

Quite a number of Deputies brought up the question of the construction and maintenance of roads, and also the question of drainage, by the Land Commission. Let me take roads first. The Land Commission makes roads for the convenience of those who get holdings when an estate is divided, but some Deputies seem to think that the Land Commission should take over other roads in the locality so as to form a link road, leading off one main road and emerging on to another. Some Deputies also seemed to think that the Land Commission should take over drainage work. Let me state clearly to all Deputies that if I were to ask the Land Commission to follow all the advice that I got here during the two or three days this Estimate has been under discussion, I am afraid that my Department would then have to embrace all the work done by practically every other Government Department in its activities. It would become a sort of jack-of-all-trades. In my opinion, the principal purpose of the Land Commission is to relieve congestion, to bring small uneconomic holdings up to a proper economic level and not much else. It has, of course, to do with the improvement of estates. It is concerned mainly with the acquisition and the resumption of land because that is necessary for the relief of congestion. That, in itself, is a huge task. I can assure Deputies that it is a task that will not be accomplished in a year or two. It will not be fully concluded in five years.

If we confine ourselves to the acquisition and the resumption of land for the relief of congestion and for the levelling of uneconomic holdings—all that, of course, will include a certain amount of drainage, road-making and improvements of all kinds on holdings —I think we will have our hands pretty full without taking on the maintenance of roads, roads in respect of which no attempt has been made to improve or repair them since they were made some years ago. I think it was Deputy Burke who described the Land Commission roads as prairie tracks. That has not been our experience in the West. We have always said that the Land Commission roads are the best roads of all in the West. That may not have been so in the East, but I certainly cannot agree with what Deputy Burke said about those roads. We cannot, and will not, take over the maintenance or repair of roads once they are made. That is the work of another Department—the Office of Public Works—or it may be the county councils. It has been argued that we do not make roads in such a way as to form a link road. The roads that we make are made to provide facilities for the people to whom we give holdings or additions of land. If we were to make roads in the way suggested by a number of Deputies it would mean the making of a county road, and that might seriously upset the proper layout of a farm on which we were allotting holdings or making additions. It is our job to provide a good quality road into the holdings, or to the additions that we give. These roads are made to convenience the people who get the holdings. We definitely make very good roads in all these cases. We have done so in the past and will do so in the future, but the Land Commission will not maintain them or repair them. If we were to do that it would mean that we were taking over the work of another Government Department. I have already indicated what the main object of this Department is. We propose to confine ourselves to that work. What I have said about roads applies to drainage. When we take over an estate we do a certain amount of drainage. We leave the land in a pretty good shape, dry, and free from flooding. I want, however, to point out that drainage work on a big scale is a matter for the drainage section of the Board of Works. It is not our intention to do work of that kind.

Deputy Cogan seemed to be concerned about fixity of tenure or rather security in land. If I remember correctly, he was speaking at the time on the vesting of land. I remember that when he was speaking I interrupted him to ask what better title could any man have than that when the Land Commission hands him over his holding—which is what actually happens—the holding or parcel of land is vested in him? Some Deputies voiced the opinion that we interfere with fixity of tenure. We are, of course, interfering. When the Land Commission serves notice on a landholder that it intends either to resume or acquire his land, it is, of course, interfering with his security of tenure. There is no doubt about that, but if we are to stand back and are not to do that, then I think the next proper step to take would be to abolish the Land Commission altogether, because its main functions would have ceased except to collect the annuities.

We do not propose to interfere with the tenure or security of the average small farmer. We are not interested in him from the point of view of disturbing him. In fact, we are anxious to get shut of every holding that is up to a proper economic level, to vest it in the tenant and to hand it over to him, because when we have done that it is, so to speak, so much written off our hands. Why should we seek to upset fixity of tenure all over the country? What would we gain by it? It would get us nowhere. It would simply mean that we would be taking on an enormous responsibility with no compensating advantage, good, bad or indifferent. Our purpose is to do away with the evil that exists, particularly in some of the western counties. That is our main object. That means that we must take over land, and that we are going to disturb the tenure of certain people already in the possession of land. That has been going on for the last 50 years. In fact, it has been going on since the Congested Districts Board was established, and it is going on to-day. I am sure it will continue to go on.

I think the Deputy has not the right angle on this question of security of tenure when he expressed the fears that he did, that we are disturbing people. We have to do it in certain cases. We do not like to do it. We know quite well that the ownership of land is very different from the ownership of any other form of property. I know quite well that any man who owns land—it may be only a few perches of reclaimed bog or it may be a nice normal workable holding or a big holding—and who has inherited that land from his father, if he is a normal healthy individual, will love to work that land; he will enjoy the growing of crops on it and will like to be able to raise some stock on it. In fact, such a man takes a peculiar delight in the ownership of that land. If you disturb such a man, well it means a pretty big upheaval for him. Nevertheless, we must do it. If, on the one hand, we are out to achieve a certain object, and that object, as I have stated, is to relieve congestion, there is no use in saying, at the same time, that we will not acquire land. We have to do it and we will do it. It is a pretty big job and it will mean a big jolt for any person from whom we take land, but it is, nevertheless, something which has to be done, rather like getting a tooth extracted when it goes bad.

A few Deputies, and particularly new Deputies, made suggestions rather on the opposite line to that taken by Deputy Cogan about ownership of land and so on. Ownership of land must remain. One Deputy made the statement that no person had a right to own land, or something to that effect. Every man in possession of land must own his land until the Land Commission, a judicial body set up by statute quite a number of years ago, goes in to take his land for a legal purpose. Outside of that, it is not our desire to disturb people in the tenure of land. They must not be disturbed. There are other big farms and we will continue to take them over, but there is also the point that we must acquire small holdings. little patches here and there which cause trouble sometimes, by reason of their peculiar location. If there is a holding like that, we must take it. Everybody, big, medium and small, must suffer a certain amount of inconvenience in the rearrangement of land. The desirable thing would be to have all holdings brought up to the fair level of valuation which would allow the tenants and every person working on the land to make a reasonable living, but, on this question of interference, we have to interfere and will do so, but, at the same time, we are anxious to give those to whom we allot land full and complete ownership and what I believe is the soundest title in the State to-day. Deputy Davin asked that those who live on demesnes should be put on the same footing as farmers outside. Other Deputies mentioned that point as well and they all seemed to be living in a fool's paradise in regard to it. These people are on the same footing as people outside. There is nothing to stop us acquiring demesne land tomorrow, if we want to. We can acquire land inside the demesne wall just as well as land outside the demense wall. Deputy Burke wants land for poultry farmers. We have done that in the past and will do it in the future. There is nothing wrong with giving land to poultry farmers for their purposes. Deputy O'Rourke asked if it is the policy of the Land Commission to give preference in Roscommon and elsewhere to local congests in the allotment of lands which are being divided. Of course, it is. The very first thing we do is to relieve any congestion there is round about the fringes of any estate acquired, and then, if there is any land left over, it can be utilised for holdings for migrants from congested areas in which there is not sufficient land to meet requirements. Deputy Giles said that a number of junior inspectors appointed by the last Government were given their posts for political reasons. My information is that all our inspectors are supplied to us by the Civil Service Commissioners. I think that should satisfy the Deputy.

Quite a few Deputies were perturbed, and rightly so, about the amount of land passing into the hands of aliens at present. In one sense, there is no need for them to be disturbed because there is nothing to stop us from taking over these lands, if we need them, just as we take any other land in the State. We will take over just as much of it as we want at any time. It will be a question for another Minister to consider the placing of a prohibition of some kind against foreigners or aliens, desirable or otherwise, acquiring property in this country. Some Deputies, and particularly Deputies from eastern and midland counties, spoke of foreigners who have bought up land and established stud farms and so on. Deputy Fagan and Deputy Hilliard seemed to be of the opinion that big farms were an advantage and that such farms in the East were necessary to finish off the store cattle of the West.

I am aware that that has been the practice up to the present, but I cannot agree with any of these Deputies in that regard. It will perhaps mean an upset in our agricultural economy if all the big farms in the East and in the Midlands disappear, but I hold that they will disappear and we shall then have to change our economy. If there were larger holdings in the West, there would not be such a store cattle trade as exists at present and we would be able to finish off our cattle, the few cattle we have in the West, if we had larger-sized holdings. The trouble at present is caused by the fact that the store cattle have to be sold off the small holdings, simply because we have not enough room to finish them off ourselves. It will, perhaps, mean an upset in our agricultural economy, as I say, when these big farms disappear and the buyers so familiar to us at fairs down the West and, I understand, in the South, too, no longer attend; but if such a day comes, we shall have to change our hand and try something else. The demand for land acquisition and resumption will continue until the greater number of the people are completely satisfied with holdings of reasonable size. If it does mean an upset in our agricultural economy, we shall have to try something else, but I put it to Deputies that it is more desirable to have houses and families on land than cattle.

To give a short summary of the situation as it stands, it is my intention and the policy of the Government that the relief of congestion and the raising of small uneconomic holdings to a fair size shall be the first consideration of the Land Commission. That will be the first consideration during the lifetime of this Government, whatever that lifetime may be. It is a pretty big problem, particularly along the western seaboard. We have at present no land on hands worth mentioning for the purpose. I said last week that, when the war broke out, the then Government decided to close down completely on land acquisition. The land on hands during the war years was gradually divided up, and there is no land now on hands. I confidently expected that there would be a certain amount of land available for me to go ahead with when I took over, but I find that there is little or none.

The acquisition and resumption of land was permitted for about two years in a few of the western counties, but that is all, and Deputy Moylan, my predecessor, and Deputies generally know quite well that there is very little land now left for that purpose, even taking into account the large farms which are available there. I think that all the large farms in any single constituency down there could be counted on the fingers of the two hands. We are acquiring and resuming small holdings when they come in the way of the final rearrangement of villages and so on. We need to face up to the problem on a pretty big scale and we intend to acquire that land in every possible place we can acquire it.

Some Deputies seem to think that we have not sufficient powers at the present time. I think we have sufficient powers but if, in the course of six months, nine months or 12 months, I find that we have not sufficient powers, Deputies will probably find that I shall come to the Dáil asking for greater powers. At the present time I do not like to make a definite statement on the matter until I have examined the question or at least have a little more experience because, as I have said, I have no experience of the acquisition of land. If we meet with difficulties in the acquisition of land, I shall be asking the House for more powers to acquire land for the purposes I have mentioned.

Would the Minister explain to what extent a pool of land is available for acquisition?

I mentioned that when the Deputy was not here. Nobody can say that with certainty. The pool varies from year to year. A farm of land which the commissioners might acquire now, they might not acquire in a year's time. Similarly they might acquire a farm in two or three years' time which they would not consider acquiring now. The pool is constantly varying. A good deal depends on the general prosperity on the land.

Is it the definite policy of the Minister not to acquire land that is being properly worked?

First of all, I must work within the statutes which have been already passed here in the House. Any land can be acquired for the relief of congestion whether it is being worked or not.

At what price?

There again, the price to be paid for the land is determined by statute.

What basis?

There are different bases. The price varies and the standard is extremely vague. It is admitted by some to be satisfactory, but anyhow, it is in accordance with the law laid down here in this House. We are working within that law. It was passed years ago and I think, on the whole, we have sufficient powers at present to deal with any question that may arise.

It is the free sale value.

It is not the free sale value, but that has to be taken into account in determining the price.

It is not confiscation.

It is not. I would not remain Minister for Lands for 24 hours if there was any question, not alone of confiscation, but even of an unfair price. We pay a reasonable price and the persons from whom land is being acquired have the court at their disposal if they think the price is unreasonable. Many cases never go into court. They are settled peacefully between the commissioners and the persons from whom the land is being acquired. There are some who grumble at the price which they get and others who do not. We pay the full market value in certain cases but it is not easy to determine what the market value is.

The land owners have good friends in court as proved by the prices paid in the past.

Has the Minister any statement to make about the question of the redemption value?

What is troubling the Deputy about the redemption value?

Am I to understand from the Minister's statement that the people from whom the land is acquired get no compensation in any way in respect of the redemption value?

Is the Deputy referring to the people from whom we acquire land?

Yes. The redemption value of their land when it is acquired is deducted from the purchase price. The Land Commission fixes a certain value for land and out of the actual price they deduct a figure representing the redemption value of the holding.

That is true.

I ask the Minister does he propose to take steps to compensate these men in any way by giving them an increased price?

I do not at the moment, because as I said in reply to Deputy Davin and Deputy Cogan, there is not a great deal of dissatisfaction about the price given. There is, of course, dissatisfaction in some cases, but it is noticeable that quite a number of people from whom we acquire land accept the price fixed by the usual method of bargaining. They do not take the matter into court and contest it.

My experience is quite different. A lot of people go into court when the redemption value is withheld.

Not all go into court.

Not all, but a good many.

All of them do not. On any occasion on which it is brought to my notice that the price we are paying is seriously inadequate, I shall not stand taking over land at that price, not for one moment. I shall immediately ask the House to give me all the freedom I require to pay a reasonable price. We shall not, however, pay an inflated price.

What means has the Minister at his disposal for determining whether or not the price being offered by the Land Commission is reasonable?

The best indication we can have of that is the action taken by those from whom we are acquiring the land. They will let us know if they think the price is inadequate. Both Deputies in Opposition and Deputies on this side will let me know.

How will the Minister be guided as to whether the complaints are reasonable or whether the price is reasonable?

I know a little myself about the subject.

Does the Minister propose to go down to a farm himself and have a look at it?

I do not think I can do that but if the necessity arose I certainly would go. I would go even for a much less important purpose. If I thought an injustice was being done to a single workman belonging to us on any estate, I would deem it my duty to go down and investigate the matter.

Will you fix the price then?

We will discuss that matter later on.

Is it not a fact that Fianna Fáil suspended its land acquisition because the price was supposed to be too high?

I do not know what the reason was but that was one of the reasons suspected. In any event, they suspended land activities completely. My guess is that they got badly frightened by the bad mess that had been made of the land they had divided up to that. In two years they divided 250,000 acres, but a few years afterwards they had to bring in an Act to dispossess some of those to whom they gave land.

The Minister appears to be indulging in quite a lot of guessing.

I am not indulging in a lot of guessing. If you want the actual figures I can give them to you.

Why did your Government suspend land acquisition?

These interruptions do not help the Minister.

Two facts remain. Land acquisition was suspended. Perhaps price was an important factor in that. But I hold that it was quite a different factor altogether that governed the suspension of land acquisition. That is the one I have already given. Perhaps, when Fianna Fáil came into office in 1932 they had a genuine desire to tackle the land question. Be that as it may, I am afraid that their method proved to be quite hopeless. The country is now in a very unsatisfactory position as a result of their method because the best and most fertile land was taken by them. They had at their disposal many big farms. If we want an area of 1,000 or 1,200 acres of land to-day we have to deal with five, six or eight different owners. Fianna Fáil took the land which would have been the most productive had it been properly worked. They gave that land to people against whom in 1946 they had to bring in an Act in order to dispossess them. Speaking last week I said that the numbers of bad users was round about the 1,000 mark. The number has actually gone into 1,300. We have not yet investigated all the cases of bad users all over the country because there is not sufficient staff in the particular section of my Department which deals with that matter to carry out a thorough investigation. I think that one of the principal reasons why Fianna Fáil were unable to reach their goal in the production of food during the emergency was because of the bad management of a large number of holdings.

The ex-Minister for Lands displayed a very poor judgment in giving what I consider to be the richest and most fertile land in the country to people who did not appreciate it. A statement of the situation makes rather deplorable reading. This Government has been charged now with a task of bringing about some improvement. I shall do my best to deal with the situation. I do not for a moment believe that my campaign will be a popular one. I shall, however, act a man's part with the backing of every single member of the Government Party behind me.

You should not distress yourselves too much in doing it.

Deputy Commons raised the point that gangers working for the Land Commission had not received the increases to which they were entitled. Under the old scale gangers received from 10/6 to 12/6 per day. They are now getting 12/6 to 14/- per day. Supervising gangers who were in receipt of 12/6 to 14/6 per day are now getting 14/6 to 18/6.

I think I have dealt with most of the points raised by the Deputies during the course of this debate. Many Deputies raised the question of bogs and asked why we did not take over bogs that were vested in the local authorities during the emergency. We are always ready and willing to take over bogs. As a matter of fact in many counties, including my own, bog plots are running scarce and the provision of turbary may become a first-class problem in the future.

Deputies on both sides of the House have promised me the co-operation for which I asked in my opening speech. I am glad that they have done so because their co-operation is absolutely essential if I am to make a success of my work. In some cases when we try to rearrange an overcrowded townland we find ourselves up against opposition from one or two people. If Deputies, particularly on the Opposition benches, would help in a matter of that kind they could play a very useful part in helping our local inspectors by advising such recalcitrants to fall in. I issue that specific appeal to them and I ask them, in cases where one or two householders in a village of 16 or 20 houses stand out, to pull their weight in trying to make such people see commonsense. In some cases the opposition comes from old people who do not care very much and who have no thought of the future. Their attitude is "Well, it is good enough for my time." They forget that they are thereby working to the disadvantage of their neighbours because if land is in rundale it must be together. It is my desire to make every holding a complete entity with dwelling-house, out-offices and so on. We want to erect dwellinghouses and provide roads. In my opinion it will take two or two and a half years before we can get into our stride. We are starting now from scratch. We must first of all secure a sufficient acreage of land to form a reservoir and, as we take away from that reservoir, we must keep adding to it also. We shall need land on a pretty big scale. We shall take land on a big scale.

On a point of order, before the Minister sits down I would like to ask him to reply to a question I put to him. I pointed out that a house which heretofore cost £400 to erect is now costing £800 and I want to know if that £800 will be charged to the incoming tenant.

It certainly will not. I think I have dealt with all the major points raised and I think I have made clear what my position is and what the policy of the Government is.

I asked during the debate if the Land Acts at present in force entitle local authorities to acquire land inside demesne walls. Am I to take it now that the local authorities have the power of acquiring land for the purpose of erecting cottages inside demesne walls?

That is a matter for the Minister for Local Government. If the Deputy addresses a Parliamentary Question to the Minister for Local Government he will get the information he requires. As far as our statutory purposes are concerned, a tenant inside the demesne wall is on the very same footing as a person outside it. He gets the same benefit from the law and he stands the same risk of having his lands acquired. I take it the Minister for Local Government can give the Deputy the information he requires on the points he has raised.

I wonder if I would be in order in asking a question?

First of all, Deputies have a right to seek information and to make representations. I think Deputies in all parts of the House should guard that right. The Minister said that he intends to introduce regulations which might cut across that right. I hope he does not mean that. Will the Minister admit that every Deputy in this House has a right to seek information from any Department and has a right to make representations to any Department? Surely he will admit that. Surely he will agree that no regulation should be made whereby no Deputy can make representations. It is a right which we should all cherish.

I did not say that I was making or that I contemplated making regulations which would preclude Deputies from making representations.

You did.

I did not.

You mentioned regulations.

I did but I did not tell the Deputy or the House the nature of these regulations.

What are they?

I would be on my feet before the Deputy would be on his if anybody, particularly a Minister, sought to infringe even in the slightest way the privileges of a member of this House. Every Deputy is free to make representations. That is what each Department is there for, and the Ministers are there to receive these representations. Lest, however, the Deputy may be under a misapprehension, I should like to make it quite clear that I have the strongest possible objection to Deputies approaching inspectors and in some cases worrying them, threatening them—perhaps even coaxing them for all I know. I shall take my own steps to stop that. I shall not be infringing any Deputy's right then. My advice to any Deputy is that when representations require to be made, not alone to my particular Department but to any Department, or as soon as any complaint is brought to his notice, he should approach the secretary of the Department or the Minister in the matter. If he does not like the particular way I view matters there is always my secretary to approach. I shall not know anything about such representations—nor do I want to— and they will receive the fullest possible consideration.

I am delighted with that. Nevertheless, inspectors do surely get information and are influenced by many factors. I prefer to see a Deputy of any Party making representations rather than a parish priest or a publican or any other individual. So long as Deputies are not prevented from seeking information from the Land Commission and making representations to the Land Commission I am satisfied.

Might I ease the Deputy's mind on that subject?

Mother of God!

I think that the Deputy knows quite well what I mean.

I know now.

I have said that I have the strongest objection to Deputies tampering with inspectors down the country——

So have I.

——and that I mean to take my own steps to stop that. There is nothing to stop any inspector who may want information on any point going to the local Deputy, the local Senator, the local county councillor, the parish priest or any other person who will give him the information he desires. I should like to bring this to the notice of Deputy Moylan and the House. Deputy Commons, I think, complained during the course of his speech of inspectors going to men to whom they should not go—those with a valuation of £25. I want to tell the House that inspectors are bound under pain of dismissal to furnish the most minute details to the Land Commission when they are furnishing a report. It is their duty to make the fullest possible inquiries so that the case of a deserving person may not be overlooked. If a Deputy were to bring to my notice, in the course of the division of a piece of land, the case of a deserving person who did not get a portion, my first step would be that the inspector responsible would be asked to account for it. I desire that no hindrance whatever shall be placed on inspectors seeking information so that the very fairest distribution of the property of the State in the hands of the Land Commission will take place and that the most deserving, regardless of their political affiliations, will get it.

Bad and all as they are, I have a great respect generally for politicians and much more confidence in politicians as public representatives than I have in any private indivïduals making representations. I trust that there will be no kind of a curb on the work of a Deputy which will prevent his making thorough-going representations and that much more notice will be taken of these representations than of the representations of any other individual in the country. We have settled that.

I think I made it clear.

Do not interrupt me any more. The next thing is that we have given the Minister a present in this debate.

Gosh, you have and I am awfully thankful.

There is a great deal of local interest in congestion in Mayo. We have put it to him that every other work in regard to dealing with land is incidental to the relief of congestion. Every other work is merely incidental to dealing with that. A very minor concession that we might get— those of us in the other parts of the country who are not concerned with congestion—is that the very great evil of flooding should be the responsibility of the Land Commission or that the Land Commission and the Board of Works, between themselves, should decide who shall take the responsibility. After all——

Is the Deputy making a second speech?

——this is a very difficult position for us and I think the Minister should do something about it. Just one final point. The Minister, in my absence from the House, put me a question as to whether I thought there was political interference with the Land Commission. A public man has only one valuable commodity. The Minister knows what it is—his word. I gave the Minister my word that there was no political interference with the Land Commission. Of course, possibly my word was tainted. The Minister, might, therefore, go to an untainted source and ask the commissioners if they have, in any fashion, been interfered with and report the answer to this House.

Vote put and agreed to.
Top
Share