When I tabled this motion some months ago I had hoped that the Minister would take the matter seriously and try to allocate grants for the carrying out of this work, but I have been sadly disappointed. I admit quite frankly that the Minister did his utmost but, at the very outset, the Minister for Finance queered the pitch. He made it impossible for the Minister and his Department to meet our wishes in this matter by stipulating that for any amount expended the tenants concerned should contribute what is, in my opinion, an exorbitant amount. To mention one case, a scheme was initiated on the Marshall estate and the proposed expenditure was £7,000. Of that £7,000, five tenants were expected to contribute approximately £1,400. Is it unfair to suggest that the Minister for Finance, when he made his Order, made it absolutely impossible for the Land Commission to do anything.
The lands of these unfortunate tenants have been subject to flooding for the past seven years. One man has 80 acres and 60 acres of these are frequently under water. How can these people be expected to pay a levy such as that? It was an impossible request. Nevertheless, I must pay a tribute to the present Minister for the fact that, in face of that, without getting these tenants to sign as requested by the Minister for Finance, he started the scheme. His Department initiated and carried out some preliminary work. That will be useless, however, unless the main job is undertaken and the Department is prepared to modify this demand.
It all comes back to the question of principle. The fundamental principle involved is: is the State responsible? Is the State prepared to allow these holdings to vanish? Is the State prepared to disclaim any responsibility? I suggest that the State is responsible. These people, even though they are smallholders, pay an annuity. Deputy Kissane stated that, as the land is vested in the tenants, it is no longer a State responsibility. I submit that it is. Take the matter of the railways which has just been discussed. The big point made by the Minister was that, in order to meet a desperate situation and save the transport system, the Government had to take action. I submit that the same thing applies here, that there is an obligation on the Government to make it possible for those people, whether they are small or large farmers, to maintain their holdings and continue to be an asset to the State.
I dealt with the other estates eight months ago. There are other estates where there are trustee funds available, but not very much. Generally speaking, it comes down to this—that the Minister will have to say whether he is going to deal with the matter on a national basis. I suggest that he should consult with the Minister for Agriculture and the Minister for Local Government in regard to the the matter. The land reclamation scheme is being carried out by the Minister for Agriculture and the Local Authorities (Works) Scheme by the Minister for Local Government in the public interest. I believe that this could be consolidated with the other schemes and that most of the work which we propose could be done under schemes initiated by the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Local Government. I am not asking for anything unreasonable.
I am not blaming the previous Government or the present Government. It is a question whether the State are to leave these people isolated and say that the matter is no responsibility of theirs. That question came up before the previous Government and nothing was done for years. Up to date nothing has been done for those people except what the Minister tried to do last year. He found it impossible to meet the demand from the Minister for Finance and at the same time to meet our demand. I again appeal to him to review the whole position and to accept the general principle that the State will come in and assist us.
There is one other point. The Minister may say that these tenants may have made no recent offer. I attended at the Land Commission offices in Tralee some months ago with one of these people, a man who had 60 acres of land under water. He was prepared to pay a certain amount with the others if the Land Commission inspector would give him an assurance that the State would maintain the embankments after repair. Under the existing system, the inspector could not give that guarantee. I quote that case to show that these farmers realise their responsibilities and that they are prepared to go as far as men could go to meet their commitments, and so make it easy for the Minister's Department to go on with the scheme.
In conclusion, I make that final appeal to the Minister. As I have said, I am just giving the facts without blaming anybody. The position is very serious for us in the case of those estates mentioned in the motion. It is difficult for us, and we are trying to do the best we can. Every man in my constituency in North and South Kerry knows these areas. The Minister himself has visited the place and he is quite aware of the position.