The subject matter of my question to-day, Sir, had reference to the gross inefficiency of the Land Commission in its administration in County Clare. It has allowed a situation to develop in that county that can have nothing but the most serious reactions on the whole administration of law in the State. I am sure the Minister knows the facts in this case well, but there is no harm in calling them to mind. Briefly they are: When the lands of O'Callaghan Westropp were being divided some years ago in East Clare, a small portion was allotted to a man named Ryan. Subsequently, for some reason—I am sure, for sufficient reason—the Land Commission took over possession of the allotment from him and a man named Patrick Maher holds a statement from the Land Commission that he received an allotment from them. Anyhow, the fact of the allotment is not in question here but on a test of the regulations issued by the Commission, Maher is entitled to an allotment inasmuch as his father was for years employed on the farm that was being divided. For some reason or other, after Ryan being dispossessed of the holding, a man named Butler was appointed caretaker and I suggest to the Minister that it would be no harm if he would tell us. on this occasion why Butler was appointed caretaker and put into occupation. This situation has continued for some years. I do not know what Butler was paying for the occupation of the land. I do not know what he was paying the Land Commission for the crops he took out of the land or if he was paying anything. I do not know what the Land Commission paid Butler for the caretaking of the land. I suggest that this is a suitable occasion for the Minister to tell us all that.
I do not know when the Land Commission started proceedings for the taking over of the place from Butler but I do know that a decree was given by a court of competent jurisdiction to the Irish Land Commission on July 15th, 1948. The information I am given is that the sheriff went on the land and formally took over possession. Now, I would like to know if that is the information the Land Commission has. I would like to emphasise here that an allotment of the land was never made to Butler. He was never made an allottee of a division of the land.
Since July 15th, 1948, nearly 12 months ago, nothing has been done to make the position clear respecting the holding. Butler was tilling the land and using the crops. There was a Land Commission house on the land and that has been vacant for all those years. I suggest that the Minister ought to take this opportunity to tell us why that house was maintained vacant and what Butler was paying for the use of the land.
It has been bruited abroad that the lawyers who advised the Land Commission said that Butler could not be evicted so long as the emblements were on the land. The emblements, of course, are the growing crops, and the cultivator is conceded the right to the growing crops no matter how he holds the land. Whether he holds it in fee or otherwise, when a letting falls, then he is allowed to take the crops. What was the letting which Butler had which entitled him to the emblements? What was he paying the Land Commission in respect of these emblements that he was allowed to take away and for which he was held in possession of the land, as we are told, on the legal authority of the lawyers advising the Land Commission?
Even suppose he were allowed the emblements, what growing crops are on the land since December or November of 1948? Remember, the Land Commission had a decree against him since July, 1948. What growing crops were on the lands in December or November of 1948 that he could not be ejected from the holding and what is the mortmain or dead hand that is holding this man in possession and ruling out the real allottee from the land?
On March 14th of this year I got a letter from the Irish Land Commission in reply to representations I had made both orally and by letter. It is:—
"14 Márta, 1949.
"With reference to the recent representations made by you on behalf of Mr. Patrick Maher, I am desired by the Land Commission to inform you that possession of the parcel of land on the above estate referred to in your letter has not yet been recovered from Mr. Michael Butler, but steps are being taken to have the order for possession which was obtained as a result of legal proceedings, executed with the least possible delay."
Note, steps were being taken to have the order for possession which was given by the court, as a result of legal proceedings, according to the Land Commission themselves, executed with the least possible delay. Nothing happened and I put down a question to the Minister on Tuesday, 22nd March, 1949, in the following terms:—
"To ask the Minister for Lands whether it is a fact that a portion of the O'Callaghan Westropp farm at Lismehane, O'Callaghan's Mills, County Clare, which was allotted to Mr. Patrick Maher, Lismehane, several years ago, and on which there is a vacant house erected by the Land Commission, is beneficially occupied by another person who is preparing to use this land during the present year although the Land Commission obtained a decree for possession against him on 15th July, 1948; and, if so, whether he will furnish an explanation of the matter and state what action, if any, the Land Commission is taking or proposes to take in this case now."
The reply was short:—
"The parcel of land referred to has not as yet been allotted to Mr. Patrick Maher, Lismehane."
I question that as long as Mr. Maher has a letter from the Land Commission stating that he received an allotment. That is not in dispute. What I am asking the Minister is why he has not taken possession of the parcel of land. The reply continued:
"The parcel is at present occupied by a caretaker who refused to give up possession when requested to do so, and against whom the Land Commission obtained a decree for possession in July last. Steps were taken to execute the decree but owing to legal difficulties possession has not yet been obtained."
What are the legal difficulties if a court of competent jurisdiction has said Mr. Butler must leave the land? What are the difficulties that have arisen and what steps have been taken to remove those difficulties?
To-day I asked a similar question and the reply is practically the same:—
"I indicated in reply to a previous question by the Deputy that there were legal difficulties."
I want to repeat, what are the legal difficulties in this case?
"Arrangements are now being made with the county registrar to execute the Decree for Possession obtained in July, 1948."
How are the legal difficulties being removed so that the county registrar can now do what he should have done in July, 1948? The whole position resolves itself into this—and I want the Minister to remember the salient features of the situation—that a parcel of land was given to an allottee because another allottee was removed by the Land Commission, for reasons sufficient to the Land Commission. I am not disputing that but I want the Minister to remember this salient feature, that a man is in possession of the holding and that a decree for possession of that holding was given by a court of competent jurisdiction. That was at least ten months ago and that man is still in possession of the holding. The Minister says that he cannot remove him owing to legal difficulties. That man was never an allottee appointed by the Land Commission. We are not told whether he is paying for the use of the land. There is a house standing vacant on the land notwithstanding all the talk about the housing shortage. The allottee whom the Land Commission did appoint can look over the wall and watch the present illegal occupant using the land. It almost looks as if a man can now acquire land irregularly and hold it irregularly despite the Land Commission. I want the Minister to tell us what exactly is the position. What is he prepared to do in this case? The present inaction of the Land Commission has reduced the administration of the Land Commission to ridicule and brought the law into contempt.
