On the motion for the Adjournment Deputy Moran gave notice to raise the subject matter of Question No. 12 on to-day's Order Paper.
Committee on Finance. - Adjournment Debate—Distribution of County Mayo Estate.
On to-day's Order Paper I had a question addressed to the Minister for Lands in which I asked:
"If he will state (i) whether a scheme for the distribution of the Kelly estate at Burren, Castlebar, has been submitted by the local office to the Land Commission for approval; (ii) the date upon which this scheme was submitted for approval, and (iii) the reasons for the long delay in dealing with the matter."
I got no reply to the specific matters upon which I asked for information in that question, because the Minister stated in his reply:
"This scheme provides among other things for the disposal of lands in course of resumption and cannot be operated until resumption proceedings are completed. There has been no avoidable delay in this matter."
I did not ask the Minister what the scheme provided for. I asked whether a scheme was in fact submitted by the local officer of the Land Commission to the head office and when that scheme was submitted, as it is notorious throughout the country that schemes submitted by the local officers of the Land Commission to the head office are often lying there for very long periods of time with nothing being done in connection with them. I pressed the Minister to-day to give me a reply to this question. He suggested that the matter must be treated with secrecy. Evidently there is some extraordinary principle of secrecy involved in dealing with a matter of this kind. Why there should be any possible question of secrecy as to when the particular scheme was submitted for approval to the Land Commission is completely beyond me. This is a new departure on the part of the Minister for Lands in connection with the administration of his Department.
If we are to accept the principle laid down by the Minister to-day that he cannot or will not give Deputies information on questions of this kind, it means that all the operations of the Land Commission will be shrouded in complete secrecy and that Deputies will be unable to elicit any information in connection with the delays of the Land Commission in dealing with matters under their jurisdiction which are notorious. If a scheme submitted to the Land Commission for the distribution of land or for any purpose coming within the ambit of the Land Commission is to be left to gather cobwebs over in Merrion Square for years and we as Deputies are not entitled to ask questions in connection with the scheme, I do not know where the procedure of this House will get to. Surely Deputies are entitled as of right to get information as to why there should be long delay in connection with a scheme of this kind. The Minister refused to-day to give this information on the ground of secrecy. What secrets would be disclosed by telling the House the date on which this scheme was submitted by the local officer to the central office of the Land Commission.
The issue was not raised by me as to what people were to be dealt with or whether any particular individuals were to get land. It may be a matter of amusement for the Minister, but it is not amusing for unfortunate farmers in Burren, outside Castlebar, who are waiting to know whether they are going to be left with the pieces of land they now hold under temporary convenience lettings on the estate. Springtime has arrived and these men want to know whether they are entitled to till the lands that they hold under lettings for temporary convenience; whether they should manure these lands; if these lands are going to be taken from them this year; and whether they must make arrangements to take conacre elsewhere for their crops. They have worn out their boots trailing into the local office of the Land Commission during the past 12 or 18 months trying to find out what is happening about the division of this estate, whether the scheme will be put into operation this year or next year or at what particular time, and they are told by the local officials that the matter has been submitted to Dublin for approval. The local officers cannot tell them anything but that they are waiting for the scheme to come back from Dublin. That is the position of these unfortunate people on this estate at present, and yet we are told by the Minister to-day that this matter must be shrouded in secrecy because the Land Commission must be protected from public inquiry as to when the scheme was submitted to them, as to how long they are to sit in judgment on it, as to how long the scheme is to be left in some forgotten file in Merrion Street to get covered with cobwebs while people down the country are waiting for a decision on the matter.
There is a principle involved in this matter. The principle enunciated by the Minister has not been enunciated by any other Minister in this House— that a cloak of secrecy must be put round issues of this kind. In connection with any scheme, let it be a scheme for a harbour work dealt with by the Department of Industry and Commerce or any other scheme under any Government Department, it has been the regular practice in this House that Deputies are entitled to put down a question as to whether the scheme was approved, when the work might start, and to get information for the benefit of their constituents so that the people would know what was happening. Now evidently we are going to be forced into the position by the Minister that "mum" must be the word as far as the Land Commission is concerned; that we are not entitled to find out by Parliamentary question what is happening in a particular case; how long the Land Commission can hold it up; whether there is in fact justifiable delay on the part of the Land Commission in dealing with any particular scheme.
If the House stands for this closure by the Minister for Lands in dealing with his Department, the same very easy procedure will no doubt be adopted by other Ministers when dealing with Parliamentary questions. Telling us that secrecy is involved is so much eyewash. Does the Minister suggest that a twopence-halfpenny scheme for the division of some small estate for the purpose of distribution must be marked private and confidential in the Land Commission office and referred to by some mystic term like "Operation Hazard"? Does the Minister suggest that it is sufficient to get the usual enlightening document from the Land Commission such as this:—
"Tá orm a admháil go bhfuarthas do litir de'n dáta —— agus a rá go bhfeicfear isteach sa scéal."
Does the Minister suggest that before that wonderful document is issued by the Land Commission the officials concerned have got to be sworn to secrecy on the Bible? There is an awful lot of hypocrisy in connection with this alleged need for secrecy in connection with the operations of the Land Commission.
Of course the Minister's refusal to give information of this kind serves a very useful purpose. It means that it provides a complete cloak for the delay and incompetence of the Land Commission or the Minister in dealing with matters of this kind. The Minister can always come to the House when pressed on matters of this kind and hold up his hands in horror and say: "This is a highly secret matter. I cannot give the House any information in connection with it." Certainly it is a bad precedent for the Minister to create and it is going to destroy the privileges which Deputies enjoy in this House when they feel bound to question long delay in dealing with matters of this kind.
If the Minister had suggested to-day that there was some reason for apprehension that some local people might know what was happening under this scheme, I could understand that. I would invite him, when replying, to state on what ground or principle he suggests it would be against the public interest to let the people concerned, or this House, know when the scheme was submitted by his local officials to the head office in Dublin, and what precedent would be broken by giving that information. Is not that information that was always made available to the House by the Minister's predecessors? Why should he now execute this complete somersault in connection with the procedure of the Land Commission? Since becoming head of the Land Commission, the Minister has done many political feats of acrobatics in connection with Land Commission policy or what he has announced to be his policy in connection with the Land Commission. We discovered to-day that whereas the matter of the Land Commission taking over land at a public sale for the purpose of relieving congestion was a matter to be lauded some 18 months ago, it evidently now is a crime if anyone suggests that the Land Commission should resume a holding for the relief of congestion.
The Deputy is repeating himself constantly. The one matter for discussion is the subject-matter of the Deputy's question to-day.
I am suggesting that there has been a change of principle in the Land Commission in view of the way the Minister dealt with this question to-day.
There is nothing in the question about the sale of land. The Deputy must deal with the subject-matter of his question, and with that only.
It is another matter in which there has been a change on the part of the Minister. He stated to-day that there was no avoidable delay on the part of the Land Commission in dealing with the Kelly estate. I challenge that, and I assert that there has been culpable delay. If the Minister refuses to inform us when this scheme was received at the head office of the Land Commission he can cover up the unreasonable and culpable delay which I assert the Land Commission are responsible for in this particular case.
This was a scheme involving a very small number of people and the resettlement of a small amount of land. There is no reason why the officials in Dublin could not have dealt with it within 48 hours of receiving it. As regards the procedure, the Minister knows that it is the local officials who prepare these schemes. They consult the people concerned, and it is on their suggestions that such schemes are approved in Dublin. I am sure the officials in Dublin never heard of a place called Burren, in the County Mayo, or of the people concerned in this division until the scheme was submitted by the local officials. They had visited the people entitled to parcels of this land and had taken particulars of their valuations and of their families.
All that work was done by the local officials. Why, then, should it take a month or, has happened in this case, 18 months, for the officials in Dublin to make a decision on the scheme, particularly at this time of the year when the local people concerned were anxious to know what their position was going to be from the point of view of putting in crops? If the Minister is going to stand by the principle that he is endeavouring to set up in this House, I want to warn him that there must be a reaction to that. It is our main function as Deputies to get information by way of Parliamentary question on these matters. That is what I am endeavouring to do in this case. I would ask him to reconsider his attitude so far as the rights of Deputies are concerned or of any future Minister who may occupy his position. He should not attempt to fritter away the rights of Deputies by refusing to give information which I hold I am entitled to get.
Deputy Moran, I am afraid, has let the cat out of the bag on himself, and particularly on one of the members of his Party who was my predecessor. He says that the scheme was lodged 18 months ago. The Deputy knows the area better than I do, and I would like to know from him if there is one or more holdings concerned.
One holding in different sections.
The Deputy said that the tenants were wearing their shoes out going into Castlebar to find out what exactly was happening in this particular case. He must be aware that these different sections, as he describes them, are not in the hands of the Land Commission yet. Would it not be a nice thing to go and divide land before you had got possession of it? The Deputy says the tenants were told in Castlebar that the scheme had been lodged, but he did not say by whom. I presume it was he himself who told them.
May I correct the Minister? The people were told by the Minister's officials in Castlebar. May I tell him, further, that the Kelly estate has been taken by the Land Commission.
Acquired?
Yes.
Whether a scheme is lodged or not, it is not the practice of the Land Commission to reveal the names or details of it to any person beforehand.
The Minister was not asked that.
Not in the question, but the Deputy's whole speech suggested that.
I did not.
Deputies have the right to inquire into matters like that, and if any useful purpose would be served by telling the Deputy or the people concerned the details of a scheme they would not be withheld, but it would definitely go a long way towards preventing a scheme coming into operation if the details were made known beforehand. In cases where the Land Commission propose to divide or allot land, I cannot see where the necessity arises to give information about it some time beforehand. Would it not be a nice thing if a Land Commission inspector in a congested district were to tell people that such and such a farm or group of holdings had been allotted and that they were going to get five or ten acres? I think that would be very good news for the tenants to hear.
Deputy Moran's attitude suggests that these people are just like children waiting for their parents to come from town with whatever toys they may have. The tenants are not of that type at all; they are not of the type that Deputy Moran would have us believe. The tenants in most cases know what the situation was as I found it; they know the mess that Deputy Moran's Party left the Land Commission in when they were the Government. I appreciate very highly indeed the patience the people have with me. They know what the position was when I took over office. They know the Land Commission was under-staffed and they know that I could not, by pressing a button or turning a switch, acquire all the land and divide it amongst them and in that way come to their relief all in a few days.
Deputy Moran is a great champion of the small farmers now. It was the attitude of Deputy Moran and his Party which weaned the support of that very class from me and endeavoured to attribute the delay to the change of Government. I think the small farmers now know that they have a Minister in office who is prepared to speed up Land Commission work and do all he can to relieve congestion in a proper, businesslike way. They know that they have a Minister who will not tolerate delays. I am telling them that now.
Deputy Moran, in the course of his question, asked me whether a scheme for distribution of the Kelly estate at Burren, Castlebar, had been submitted by the local office to the Land Commission for approval. Suppose I said "yes" or "no", where would that get the Deputy? He went on to ask about the date upon which this scheme was submitted for approval and the reasons for the long delay in dealing with this matter. The fact is that, whether or not it is the same land that Deputy Moran is referring to, we are going to resume three holdings in the townland of Burren.
The Land Commission have the lands to which I am referring in their hands for the last three or four years.
That is not true. I am afraid Deputy Moran has been misinformed. My Department has informed me that we have not yet got possession of these holdings. Deputy Moran now says that the Land Commission have had possession of these holdings for four years.
They have possession of the holdings which I have mentioned in my question.
The Deputy in his question asked about the distribution of the Kelly estate. That comprises nearly the whole townland. With all due respect to the Deputy, I am afraid he has been misled.
It is the Minister who has been misled.
The Deputy has been misled, or else he does not know what he is talking about. The fact is that we are resuming holdings in Burren for the relief of congestion but we will not divide or stripe or allot them until we have resumed them. Even with the wide powers that the Land Commission have, we will not divide other people's land until the resumption proceedings are completed.
I specifically mentioned in my question the Kelly estate at Burren. That is a holding that was left by a migrant, a man who was migrated by the Land Commission. It has been in the hands of the Land Commission for four years. It has been let in temporary lettings to various tenants. If the Minister thinks that he can side-step the issue by some "codology" about other estates, he is making a mistake.
My Department knows all about these holdings and the officials in it have more information about them than the Deputy. The Deputy has probably made promises to people in the district and they are not materialising, or he may have misinformed tenants. If he has made a fool of himself, I cannot help him.
May be it is the Minister's officials in Castlebar who have made a fool of him.
I told the Deputy to-day that this scheme provides, among other things, for the disposal of lands in course of resumption and it cannot be operated until the resumption proceedings are completed. Surely that is plain enough English for the Deputy. I also pointed out that there has not been any avoidable delay. If the Deputy made foolish promises to people, or promised them too much, I cannot help him. If he has been foolish or if he has made unguarded statements, that is his own affair. He should not have done it. He should have known more than to do it and I am afraid I cannot come to his rescue.
He refers to me as having made a change of face. I made no change of face. As a matter of fact, the Deputy has made a certain change of face. He had his chance when he was sitting behind the Minister for Lands in his own Party and surely he could have done something then. The fact is that he did not. Indeed, his voice was remarkably silent. If I remember correctly, on a few occasions when the Vote for the Department of Lands was being considered the Deputy congratulated the Minister for Lands on how well he was getting along when, as a matter of fact, he was really doing nothing.
He did ten times more than you in any year, at his worst.
That is the situation we have to-day, and I am sorry that Deputy Moran has seen fit to raise this matter in this way. He wants us to divide lands before we resume them. We will first have to resume the lands before we proceed to allot them. While the small farmers, the congests, in Mayo have such an open and brave champion as Deputy Moran to fight their cause, they have nothing to worry about. Let him not make any promises in the future. Let him first get the facts and any time he thinks fit to put down a question an answer will be given to him.
It is stated here in very plain English what the position is and there is no attempt to conceal or mislead. The Deputy is entitled to get information, provided the giving of it will not impede the work of Government departments. There is no special privilege in this instance and there is no departure from the usual procedure. I will give any information that is required where it does not impede or delay the work of the Department. If it does, I will be justified in not giving it. I will answer any question the Deputy puts down.
Why did you not answer this one?
The Dáil adjourned at 10.30 p.m. until Tuesday, 3rd May, at 3 p.m.