Much discussion has taken place here on this Estimate in connection with the congestion problem. No doubt it is understandable why so much attention should be paid to that grave problem. I think everybody who has any experience at all of it must come to the conclusion that it is a very difficult problem to solve. The Minister seems to be rather optimistic as to the possibility of solving it over the next ten years, but whether he has any material at his disposal to justify that optimism is another matter. We have been told that there are about 23,000 congests in County Mayo alone.
Committee on Finance. - Vote 47—Lands (Resumed).
Who said that?
I have seen that figure somewhere.
I did not say it.
I should like to know from the Minister whether that is correct. If it is not correct, how far is it from being correct? In my humble estimation, having regard to the amount of land available for acquisition and division in the country, it would take nearly the whole amount of it to solve the problem in Mayo alone, and if there is any attention to be paid to the requirements of other counties, in which congestion also exists, it is hard to know where the land is to be got, unless, of course, the Minister makes use of his new machinery to go into the open market and bid for land against would-be private purchasers.
That is the machinery which you opposed.
If the Deputy would allow me, I was just going to point out a certain danger which I see in that. I know, of course, that this has been debated well enough already, and I do not propose to elaborate on it; but, if the Minister does that, if he goes into the open market to purchase land for the purpose of solving the problem of congestion, it could transpire that his agents would be bidding against private bidders, people who have made money out of land in the ordinary way themselves, and would naturally want to invest the money in land, and it may be in the long run that such a practice would not have a very good effect.
It usually is the ambition of the holder of a medium-sized farm to make some money for the members of his family whose inclinations are towards settling on the land. Only one member of the family can get the home farm, and it is the ambition of the father of a family in these cases to purchase land for the second member of the family. If such a person finds himself up against the agent of the Land Commission, it is possible that he will not be able to purchase land at all.
It is equally possible that he may outbid the Land Commission.
And so the custom, to which I have referred and which has been in operation here for a number of years, will be upset. I am just posing that side of the question to the Minister and to the House. Before I go away from it, I would say that a great deal of caution should be exercised in regard to that particular matter.
The record of the Land Commission for the past year has not been a very encouraging one. As has been pointed out here, the amount of land divided does not exceed by very much the average figure for the war years.
It is only three times the amount.
It is no such thing, in my opinion, according to the figures which I have seen.
Do not rely on your opinion; rely on the figures.
What figures did the Minister give us for the year?
I did not give any figures; you did not ask for them.
That is the trouble. The Minister did not give the figures that we are entitled to.
If I did give them, they might be misquoted in the Irish Press.
I can speak for my own county, and I am afraid that the activities of the Land Commission in the part of the county which I have the honour to represent have been very restricted. I should point out to the Minister that a good deal of congestion exists in my county, and that the problem there requires the attention of the Minister and of the Land Commission, as well as it does in County Mayo.
Did the congestion start in 1948?
Deputy O'Higgins can speak after me if he wants to. I am putting some points to the Minister which I consider should be put to him. As I have said, there is congestion in my county, and the extraordinary thing about it is that certain landholders there have offered their land to the Land Commission, and I find that the Land Commission are very slow in taking it, and for what reason I do not know.
They might not take it at all.
If they do not want to take it at all, we would like to know what is the policy of the Land Commission so far as those people are concerned.
It is not their policy to take everything that is thrown at them.
I say there are landholders there willing to give their land to the Land Commission—and in some cases sizeable holdings—for an exchange in one of the eastern counties. Not alone is it, in my opinion, wrong to refuse to consider these cases, but it has a bad effect in another way which I propose to point out to the Minister. There are certain small landholders on the fringe of the Gaeltacht who have made applications for housing grants, and these applications have been held over.
Why?
Because the Land Commission point out that a rearrangement scheme is being prepared, that certain holdings are to be vacated and in some of these cases the landowners have offered their holdings to the Land Commission for an exchange of holdings in other parts of the country. The building of houses in these parts is held up because of this. I would like to know from the Minister when it is proposed to give a decision in these cases, so that people who want to build houses in a locality where a rearrangement scheme is under consideration will know when their applications for new houses will be considered, or if they will be considered at all. I think it is wrong to prevent people from building new houses in these localities, where they need them badly. It should be very easy for the members of the Land Commission to make up their minds as to who would be likely to be migrated from such places and who would be likely to be left at home. I would ask the Minister to bear that matter in mind. I have written to the Land Commission myself about it, but so far nothing has been done.
It is very important that if people who reside within a reasonable distance of a congested district, like, say, the Gaeltacht, offer their holdings to the Land Commission in exchange for other holdings in another part of the country, their offer should be very sympathetically considered by the Land Commission. It is easier, indeed much easier, to take land when you get it like that, than to try to acquire it compulsorily.
Another point which I would like to bring to the Minister's notice is the repair of embankments. The repair of embankments is a very important matter in my constituency. I know very well of course that the Minister will tell me as he has told us in the past that the Land Commission have no responsibility for the repair or upkeep of embankments, but even though in the strict sense they have no responsibility, still my opinion is that it is their duty to make sure that the land of the country is not allowed to deteriorate because of flooding caused by breaches in river or sea embankments. As the Minister knows, when breaches occur in the first instance it is comparatively easy to repair them, but when they are left there to get wider and wider over months, and sometimes over a couple of years, their repair presents an engineering problem and a problem of increased expenditure. I think it would be a good thing if Land Commission inspectors down the country were instructed to make a survey with a view to having a scheme carried out to repair breaches everywhere they exist. This is a problem which has not got the proper attention of the Land Commission so far. I know of course that a certain amount has been done. Repairs have been carried out by the Land Commission here and there, but only in a very restricted way.
Another thing that affects my county is the division of turbary. There is a lot of turbary to be divided in my constituency still and I do not know what measures are being taken by the Land Commission to divide it. It is an extraordinary thing that there are places down there where even small farmers have not turbary, not to mind cottiers and other people, while broad acres of turbary lie idle waiting to be acquired and divided by the Land Commission. That is a job which should engage the serious attention of the Minister and the Land Commission. It is very important that the people should be provided with fuel, especially when it abounds so plentifully in those regions of which I speak, and very little has been done in that direction during the past few years. Earlier on, I must say, the Land Commission did divide a good deal of turbary but a lot still remains. Of course I need hardly remind the House that apart entirely from providing the people with fuel the division and development of turbary provide a great deal of employment which is very badly needed indeed at the present time in these parts of which I speak. I would therefore urge upon the Ministry the importance of acquiring and dividing turbary.
The Minister has given an undertaking to the House that under the new Bill he will be able to go ahead with tackling the problem of congestion at a much more rapid pace than hitherto. I would urge upon him the necessity of turning the Land Commission's attention towards the problem in Kerry and making sure that the offers of land, to which I have already referred, by people who live adjacent to the congested areas will be considered sympathetically. It is, as I have said, difficult to understand why the Land Commission are so slow in considering these offers.
It is rather a strange thing that after almost 30 years of native Government this House should still be debating the acquisition and division of land and it seems stranger still that members of the Party opposite should think that the present Government or the present Minister for Lands should within two years settle the whole problem whereas they themselves had 16 years in which to do it and after that period it was found to be as big a problem as when native Government was set up. When the present Government took office inspectors from the Land Commission went here and there through the country surveying certain lands and it looked as if Fianna Fáil clubs had given the names of certain landowners whose land they wished to divide unknown entirely to the people concerned. After all, it is a strange thing that anybody should endeavour to acquire land from a person who is not anxious to give it to the Land Commission or to anybody else. In all these cases it has been shown, I think, that there is too much greed to acquire land. I could never agree with a policy that would take land from any individual even to relieve congestion, provided of course that he is making proper use of it, or rather making use of it to the best of his ability because it is not always possible for landowners, perhaps because of want of proper help, to make the best use of their land to the benefit not only of themselves but of the community generally. Allowances must always be made and it would be entirely wrong of the Land Commission to step in and take over lands indiscriminately. We have always seen that in cases where land is offered in a congested area, there is such a scramble for the piece of land available and so many applicants for it that it gives rise to a great deal of local dissension and dispute, with the result that very often the Land Commission, in their wisdom, refuse to acquire that land.
I personally am not so much concerned with the acquisition or division of land as with the Gaeltacht Services Vote. We continually hear that everything should be done for the welfare of those living in the Gaeltacht in order to induce them to stay in these Gaeltacht areas where Irish is the spoken language of the people, and yet I must confess that, in that portion of my constituency which comprises the Gaeltacht, practically nothing at all has been done all down the years by any Government to improve the conditions of the people there. When recently in Donegal, I noticed that some very important steps had been taken to set up local industries, cottage industries, which seem to have been very successful. The Minister, I am sure, knows about these. Some of the people work in their homes and some in local factories and they work in very good conditions. Representations have repeatedly been made to the Land Commission and to the Gaeltacht Industries Department with regard to the setting up of some industries in the Iveragh district of Kerry where there is the possibility of a net-making industry, a toys and doll-making industry, and so on.
Are we discussing the Gaeltacht Vote?
No; we are not discussing Gaeltacht industries. That Vote will be discussed separately.
I thought the three Votes—Votes 47, 48 and 49—were being discussed together.
No. We are discussing only the Land Commission.
What I have said about Gaeltacht services will do when the Vote comes up later on. The matter to which Deputy Kissane referred, breaches of embankments, is one which deserves the immediate attention of the Minister. Even though very little has been done in that respect, it is not for want of putting it before the Land Commission. However, I must say that the present Minister has come to the rescue of the people concerned in certain areas in South Kerry, where breaches of these embankments have occurred, but there are still hundreds of acres being flooded. If, when these breaches occurred some nine or ten years ago, they had been repaired, the work would not have cost one-twentieth of what it will cost now. There is in South Kerry the Maine valley, where the lands are amongst the richest in the country. These lands are continually flooded because of breaches in these embankments. I realise that, within a reasonable time, the Maine will be drained, but, pending that drainage, it is a pity that some money is not provided for the repair of these embankments which are causing this flooding.
With regard to the division of turbary, the Minister has done something in my area, but there are tenants who were to have a right of turbary in connection with the purchase of their lands for whom nothing has so far been done. I am sure, however, that, with the passage of time and in view of the fact that surveys have been made, all these matters will eventually be amicably settled. I know the Minister is doing his best and there is no grievance put before him that he does not do his best to remedy. We must be reasonable and understand that these difficult problems cannot be settled overnight. The Minister's Department is one of the most important in relation to the congested areas, and I hope the Minister, in his goodness and wisdom, will do everything possible to bring about such a situation as will enable the people in these districts to live in some kind of decency.
A question was raised last week with regard to expenditure in different counties and I find that, under the heading of "Estates Improvements", up to March, 1949, Kerry received £28,198 and Galway £48,834. On the basis of Galway and Kerry being analogous, so far as valuations and populations are concerned, I claim that Kerry should at least have been put on the same footing as Galway. Under the heading of "Estates Improvements", we have schemes in Kerry as referred to by Deputy Palmer in relation to river embankments, division of turbary and so on. Time and again I have raised this question of embankment works and the Minister has made it quite clear that he has no liability in regard to them. That is correct. It is not the responsibility of the Land Commission to repair these embankments, but can any native Government stand aside and leave these people, so to speak, at the mercy of the waves? Large areas of valuable land are being destroyed and washed away.
We are informed that because of some legal technicality in the old landlord days when these lands were being purchased the responsibility was on the tenant and on trustees appointed under these Land Purchase Acts. That is a very easy way out of a serious difficulty at the moment, but I suggest to the Minister that that approach is all wrong. Even though there is no legal commitment in relation to the repair of these embankments, why does the Minister not do as the Minister for Agriculture did when he made £40,000,000 available for rehabilitation work? Why should the Minister not approach the head of the Government and say: "I am anxious to get finished with this business once and for all. Give me £500,000 to get finished with it." Some arrangement could be made by which the people concerned, where they could do so—as they have done— would pay some percentage of the cost. If that money could be capitalised and consolidated with the land annuity so that they would pay a certain percentage of it back to the Land Commission every year it would be a good day's work for the Government and for the farmers concerned. In my own native parish of Milltown, County Kerry, recently the farmers paid a contribution of one-fifth of the total. I am speaking of one section of the people on the Marshall estate. The other section, owing to their circumstances and the fact that the land had been flooded over a long period, could pay hardly anything. The Minister has done great work for us in certain sections of that district, but the work is incomplete. There are other important areas to be attended to and a great deal of this embankment work is unfinished. On behalf of the people there, I would certainly appreciate it if the Minister would ask the Government to find the ways and means to meet us in regard to this matter.
Recently the Minister's inspectors prevented the local people from grazing Rossbeigh Island and from removing straw from that island. For the last 40 years it has been the practice of these tenants to utilise this white straw, as they call it, for the thatching of houses and outhouses. They are now being prevented from taking it away because of the danger of drifting sand and of causing erosion. Except at one very restricted point, there is no erosion so far as I can see. As the Land Commission have instructed the Garda authorities to prevent these people from going on to that island, I would ask the Minister to examine the position to see if he could not allow these people to graze the island as they have been doing for 40 years, and at least allow a number of them to remove this straw, which is very valuable to them.
I should also like to call the Minister's attention to the question of Land Commission housing work in my constituency. Even though no blame can be attached to the present Government, and no question could be raised as to their indifference, I am anxious to raise a question with regard to a farm in the Gaeltacht district of Ballinskelligs. Some 12 or 18 months ago I brought up the question of that farm, from which a man had been migrated. For seven years under the last Government no houses had been provided for the people who were to get that land. I was informed at the time that the matter would be considered. Subsequently I was informed that the land might be given over to these men this year. I accept the Minister's reply that the matter will be attended to this year, and I hope that it will be done.
What is the name of the farm?
It is a place called Lehid, the Glen, Ballinskelligs. The land was to be apportioned out between three tenants. The dwelling-house has now become derelict, and is not worth taking over. I am just bringing the matter to the Minister's notice. Then there is the question of sluice gates. In certain of these areas the farmers are prepared to pay a portion of the cost of these sluice gates so that a scheme could be worked out somewhat similar to the farm improvements scheme. The cost of one of these sluice gates would be from £60 to £100, and I suggest that the tenants should pay one quarter of the amount and that the Land Commission should provide the remainder. It is not a question of one sluice gate, because in some areas a number of them is required. That is why I suggest that a scheme should be formulated somewhat analogous to the farm improvements scheme.
Had I been permitted to say the few words that I wanted to say at Question Time to-day, I would have been saved the obligation of saying them now.
You were too late, Deputy.
I often think of the long struggle with which I, as a young man, was associated—the struggle of the Irish people and the strenuous and great battles that were being fought by the Irish Parliamentary Party in an alien Parliament to eliminate the greatest tyranny that ever afflicted a fair land and to give to the tenant farmers of Ireland fixity of tenure, free sale and a fair rent. Many of those who were associated with me in that struggle have passed on. Lately I have been asking myself the question: What is the position? I am afraid there is something wrong about the whole thing. One is often asked, when talking in a general way, to state something specific to substantiate and clarify the case one may be making. I hope to do so in a minute or two. I must certainly say that the Minister deserves to be congratulated in respect of certain remedial sections which he has recently introduced in land legislation. I did not hear any speaker in this House advert to the fact that the Minister has introduced a section in that legislation which removes a cancer which previously existed, namely, the problem of dual ownership. I think that there are not many cases of dual ownership and that they are mostly to be found in the South of Ireland but the change which the Minister has made in our legislation in that respect is unquestionably to his credit. Then again, under the Bill which was recently passed by this House, the owner of land which is to be acquired will receive the market value. There has been some discussion in regard to the determination of "market value" but I shall not go into that aspect of the matter now.
I have here a letter dated 7ú Bealtaine, 1949, from the Land Commission. I am afraid I shall have to say some pretty hard things but my remarks will not apply to the general staff of the Land Commission. I am happy to be able to say that I have found the officials in all the Departments of State most helpful, most co-operative and most sympathetic in every conceivable way. Here, I am going to attack the hierarchy of the Irish Land Commission and, before I have finished speaking, I shall be able to establish my charge. The letter begins as follows:—
"I am desired to refer to your offer to sell an area of 164 acres of your registered holding in the townland of Garryduff, the subject of folio 14936, County Limerick,..."
Just imagine 164 acres of reasonably good land being sold to the Irish Land Commission for the munificent offer— which was increased afterwards as a result of considerable and consistent pressure—of £320, less the cost of redemption. Can you imagine giving 164 acres of reasonably good land in the County of Limerick for £320, which sum, after the deduction of legal fees, would be reduced to £240? What a generous, munificent, Christian offer to a man with seven children—£240 for 164 acres. Is it not a good thing that we have lived to see the day that a Minister has remedied that catastrophic economic state of affairs?
With regard to fixity of tenure, I may say that I agree with Deputy Palmer's remarks in that there is a feeling of insecurity and timidity amongst the farming community at the moment. They have been visited over the past two years by inspectors from the Department. These, in turn, have gone to prospective allottees and others in the area and told them that very soon they expected that the lands of Mr. A. or Mr. X. or Mr. Y. would, or may be acquired for subdivision and that new people, in turn, would get portion of it. The prospective allottees in my area— not far from where I live—came to me in some cases singly, in some cases in groups, and told me about the position and asked me if I would use my good offices with the Land Commission in connection with the division of these lands. Can you fancy fixity of tenure? How many times have I heard the present Minister and others in this House, and on public platforms, give an assurance that no farmer would be interfered with in his land so long as he farmed his holding satisfactorily— so long as he gave employment and gave evidence of working his land primarily for the benefit of himself and his family and, after that, for the general good of the community.
I know some farmers who come in that category. I brought them to the Minister. Not long ago, I brought a young man, about 30 years of age, married, with a rising young family of four or five. He had knocked down an old thatched house and built instead a two-storey, five or six-roomed house, taking advantage of the Acts. He was a modern, energetic, industrious, progressive young farmer, milking about 40 cows and with five men regularly employed. He had an outside farm which was bought by his great-great-grandfather. Inspectors from the Department, like locusts of India, were on the trail of that farm, to seize it. The Minister is listening to me now. I am not exaggerating, but am repeating here and now a statement that I made in his presence with the individual concerned. That is No. 1.
I had Nos. 1, 2 and 3. I think we have succeeded in two of the cases, after a long, not embittered, but argumentative struggle with the Land Commission. The first case I mentioned has yet to be determined by the Land Commission. I ask the Minister to-day where is fixity of tenure now. Where is fixity of tenure, when a young man builds a house, succeeds to his great-grandfather's outside farm, gives regular and continuous employment and is being threatened? He has been in and out to me every other week and I brought him to Dublin. I want to relate that, now, to the case about which I put a question to-day. Because I would have been out of order then, I have to use the less restricted atmosphere of this debate to talk on it. It is not far from these cases that I have mentioned, without giving names, cases that must be clearly before the mind of the Minister.
The question to-day was about an estate near my town where a lady owns 300 acres. She gave little or no employment ever, except to a herdsman, and he was dismissed in about a week, without sympathy or consideration, and he in turn had to come to me to look for home help. For a quarter of a century these lands have been set on the 11 months' system. I can testify to that, as I know it for 25 years. The Land Commission held an inquiry, and an inspection was made of those lands. Having satisfied themselves, they decided that they would acquire 140 acres for subdivision, to be given in part to those uneconomic and other holders who had been taking grazing for the last 20, 25 or 30 years. This lady took it to the courts. I have here a cutting from the Dublin Evening Herald of the 2nd March, 1950. The portion in leaded type reports that the chairman of the Land Commission tribunal stated he would
"adjourn the proposed acquisition for two years in order to give the owners a chance to rehabilitate themselves."
What has the lady done since? She has been setting the grass at 17/6 per beast per month, and the money had to be paid to her before they were allowed to go inside the gate. I have with me documentary evidence about that, drafted by myself and signed by some of the people who paid this lady for the grazing since this decision was made by the Land Commission. Some of these people were with me late last evening. I asked them if they were prepared to sign the documents, as I knew nothing about it. A Captain X and others in turn signed. I said:—
"You know what you are signing; the Minister may ask me to produce this evidence."
They said:—
"We will bring you 20 more who must pay 17/6 for a cow or two-year-old—under two-year-old it is 16/— each month and every month."
The grazing is being set for this year and the money collected, and the recipient of the money is bound for Switzerland, to enjoy the benefits of that bracing air, while the local rustics slave to pay 17/6 per beast to give her plenty of money to enjoy herself.
I have given two specific cases, of three farmers who are working their land properly and of this lady, where there is no analogy. I draw this to the attention of the Minister. I exculpate from all blame the general staff of the Land Commission. I think the higher staffs should be cleared out, in the hierarchy of the Land Commission, which is exemplified in this action. I trust the Minister will take serious cognisance of the fact that some of his officials in various parts of the country are irritating and tantalising progressive farmers in this sickening and disgusting way by preferential treatment.
I wish to express my dissatisfaction at the meagre amount of money being provided by the Minister for the working of the Department of Lands, and to compare what he proposes to do now as Minister with what he stated should have been provided, when he was sitting on this side of the House. The Minister used to state that the land problem, particularly in relation to the relief of congestion in the West of Ireland, was one of the most important problems that this Parliament had to solve. He used to suggest that a great deal more money should be provided by the Oireachtas for the Department of which he is now the head. But, when the responsibility is placed on him, we find that he is not now tackling the problem as he had envisaged it should be tackled when he was on this side of the House. I maintain that the Minister is not exerting sufficient authority in the Cabinet to get money for the relief of this particular problem. His introductory statement on the Estimate last year was very brief and this year it was not much more explanatory of the problem that confronts the country.
We all know, and it has been admitted during this debate, that the Minister can tour the country and visit constituencies such as Roscommon, to see, as he said himself, the plight of the poor congests there. Whether it was for another purpose, whether he offered inducements to take them out of that plight, or whether it was done for political purposes, as has been alleged, is another question. He has admitted that he did go there to see the plight of the congests in County Roscommon, at the invitation of a Deputy on the Government side of the House. If the Minister is touring the country at the expense of the State, it is not to the congested areas that he should go, because he comes from the congested areas and, without visiting the farms and houses of the congests, he, like myself and the other Deputies from the congested areas, should very well know their plight, if it was not for some other purpose that he was making these visits.
If the Minister were doing his job rightly, it is to the people with 500 acres, and over, that he should go, the people on whom Deputy Giles said the bloodhounds should not be let loose, the people with the 1,000 acres, the Aga Khans, and such like, that came and are coming in and buying up the big ranches. These are the people that the Minister should visit. That is the sort of farm he should view, to find out what use they are making of the land, whether they are using it according to proper methods of husbandry or not, by how much he will reduce these big ranches and how much of the land the Government will be prepared to acquire for the relief of congestion. I maintain that it is not to the congests the Minister should go but that, if he were doing his duty rightly, if he wants to pay these visits, he should adopt the method I have suggested.
I am completely dissatisfied with the position in regard to the division of land, with reference, at any rate, to my constituency. Last week I put down a question to the Minister for Lands. I am sorry he is not in the House at the moment. The question was in connection with the division of Monaghan's estate, Grange, Turloughmore. As far as we can gather, the people in the locality, some of them who got additions of land and particularly those who did not get land, were completely dissatisfied. As a result, as one of the Deputies from the county, I got an invitation to attend a meeting in Galway to meet the people of the locality, to hear their grievances. I duly went there and I was given a list made out, not by me but by some of the tenants who got land and some of those who were left out. They gave me and the other Deputies present an idea of the amount of land that the tenants had before the estate was divided and the additions they received on division.
As far as I could gather from them, the new method of dividing land in my constituency appears to be on the principle that the more land you had, the greater your valuation had been, the more land you got. An innovation had been introduced that, if a person had a big holding of land and wanted to get an addition for a son or daughter, he gave portion to the son or daughter, to create another congest, and then the son or daughter got an addition in the division of the estate to be divided.
I was surprised when I heard that that had happened and I put down a question. I believe that in two cases there was subdivision on the Monaghan estate. I put down a simple question on 26th April, 1950. I asked the Minister for Lands if he would state whether Mrs. Margaret O'Brien, Grange, Turloughmore, applied to the Land Commission to have her holding subdivided in order to give portion of it to her son, Patrick J. O'Brien, and, if so, whether he will state (a) the date on which the application was made, (b) the date on which it was sanctioned by the Land Commission and (c) the ground on which consent to the subdivision was given. The Minister replied that it is not the practice of the Land Commission to disclose confidential information of this description. I hold that if there was not something wrong the Minister should have given me the information. If this woman, Mrs. M. O'Brien, was allowed to subdivide her holding and to give part of it to her son in order to create an economic holding for him, there was nothing wrong in that. The Minister should have told me when she applied to have that subdivision granted, when it was sanctioned and the grounds on which it was sanctioned. I would have been quite satisfied if the Minister had told me that she was allowed to subdivide in order to provide an economic holding for her son. I presume the reason why the information was not given was because the holding she gave her son was not an economic one. That was clearly demonstrated because in the subdivision of this estate to which I have referred, a further 33 acres were given to him by the Land Commission. Yet another man in that area with a valuation of £6 15s. 0d., Mr. John O'Malley, Costelloe, was left completely out and got no addition in Monaghan's estate, Grange, Turloughmore. This man has three in family. Mr. Tim Rabbit of Cahertymore, Athenry, has a valuation of £6 5s. 0d. He is a married man with seven in family, four sons and three daughters ranging from two years to 14 years; he got nothing.
How far are they from the lands that were divided?
The latter is only a mile and 40 yards away. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance, Deputy Donnellan, who prompted that question by the Minister, agreed that this man should get more land and no later than last week he told him that he should have got land.
That is nonsense. I did no such thing.
And he was surprised when he heard he did not get land.
It was you who talked about giving him land. I did not do that at all. He told me that he lived more than a mile and a quarter away and I told him that I was afraid he would not succeed on that account.
I thought a moment ago you had not been talking to him at all.
I did not go there dividing the land.
Acting-Chairman (Mr. O'Reilly)
Deputy Kitt, please.
In order to show how this land was divided, 23 people got land on it. Five people within a mile or so of it got nothing. One of those was Tim Rabbit, to whom I have already referred. John O'Malley, Costelloe, with a valuation of £6 15s. could throw a stone from his fields into the estate. The longest distance he is from it by road is a mile and 40 yards or so. There were three others who got nothing at all. The position seems to be that the more land one has and the higher the valuation, the more land one gets. I shall give a few examples of that. A man named Patrick J. O'Brien got 33 acres to add to the 68 acres he already has.
He did not.
Peter Morrissey, Ballyloughane, Athenry, got 52 acres 1 rood to add to the 27 acres 1 rood and 32 perches he already had. His brother, a bachelor, got 19 acres 3 roods to add to the 25 acres he already had. We have people with 21 acres who got an addition of four acres; we have people with 30 acres who got an addition of 14 acres. We have people with 27 acres who got an addition of 4 acres and 3 roods. The land is the same in every case. Therefore, the more land people had the more they got.
You have that in the Bible.
The higher the valuations the more land the people get. We have a "new look" in the Land Commission. A parent is now allowed to subdivide a holding and give portion of that holding to a son. That son will then get an addition while other landholders, who are tenants of the Land Commission and have large families, get no addition to their existing uneconomic holdings. The Minister, when he was in opposition, raised this matter at column 2635 of Dáil Debates, 9th May, 1946. He said:—
"They should not allow subdivision. I have repeatedly stated here that the main purpose of the Land Commission should be to bring up uneconomic landholders to a certain economic level and prevent subdivision of the holdings such as happened in the old landlord days, resulting in the rundale system and the uneconomic plight of many landholders along the western seaboard."
The Minister was right when he said that. That has always been the general practice of the Land Commission in the past. There is grave dissatisfaction in my constituency as a result of the division of this estate. The Parliamentary Secretary, Deputy Donnellan, knows that. I tried to raise this matter by means of parliamentary question both last week and the week before. On neither occasion did I get a satisfactory reply. I gave notice to-day that I would raise this matter on the Adjournment. I have now received a note from the Leas-Cheann Comhairle stating that I shall not be allowed to raise it on the Adjournment. Therefore, I take this opportunity of bringing the matter before the House in order to show that grave dissatisfaction exists in my constituency because of the division of this Monaghan estate. I notice this practice with regard to subdivision is becoming very prevalent of late. I would appeal to the Minister not to allow it to continue. I have pointed out two cases where it has occurred. A few weeks ago I had a question down about subdivision. A man was allowed to sell 67 acres at Winfield, Menlough. Now, that is a congested area. On that occasion the Minister informed me that the Land Commission allowed the subdivision, but he added that the Land Commission had before their mind the object of relieving congestion in that area. I must say it seems to be a funny way of relieving congestion if a big farmer is allowed to sell portion of his holding by private treaty to already fairly substantial landowners while tenants living on uneconomic holdings are left without any relief.
I would urge on the Minister that his Department should initiate some scheme of resettlement for the people in Winfield Lower, Menlough, Ballinasloe. Some of them will have to migrate to other areas. There are big farms in that locality, some of which are non-residential, and they are being bought up by already substantial landowners and others. The Land Commission should stop that and should take over these farms themselves for the relief of congestion in that area. Deputy Killilea referred to the Daly estate, Knockbrack. In that case the smaller the valuations the less land the people got. Some were left out altogether. The Minister will have to tackle this problem. He will have to spend more money on its solution than he proposes to spend under this Estimate.
There is another matter to which I would refer. I raised it last year on this Estimate too. The Land Commission has a habit of making a road half way on one side of an estate and one-third of the way on the other side. They leave a little portion in the middle over which no road runs. I referred to one road in particular last year, Fohenagh to Kilconnell. There is only a short distance, actually the breadth of one man's farm, left out. The two parts that have been made are in fairly good condition and if the road were completed the county council would take it over and maintain it. I understand that at the moment a farm is being divided in the Clonbrock-Ahascragh area and that a road is to be made through the estate to link up these two areas. I hope that road will be completed, otherwise it will create a big difficulty for the local authority later on. When the road is being made at all, the few hundred pounds necessary to complete it should be provided and a right job made of it.
Another problem that confronts the people of my constituency is that of getting a sufficient supply of turbary. As well as having large tracts of land there, we have some very large bog estates. I asked a number of questions here during the year, particularly about two bogs, the Bellews bog and the Clonbrock bog. Under the system that prevails there at the moment, the tenants have to take bog in conacre. There is an agent for the landlord who sets so many perches of bog to each tenant for the year. These bogs are not properly developed and there are no roads into them. Even though one may think that we have plenty of turbary in the West of Ireland, there are some people at the same time who have to pay rent for bog taken in conacre every year. I would suggest that where there are large tracts of bog, such as the Bellews and Clonbrock bog, these should be taken over by the Land Commission and divided amongst the tenants in these localities.
Having dealt with that question and registered my protest against the manner in which certain estates were divided recently in my constituency, I would urge on the Minister—I think he has referred to it himself—that it may be necessary to bring in a Supplementary Estimate during the year. I think that it is certainly needed. So far as the relief of congestion is concerned, he will certainly meet with no opposition from us in any Supplementary Estimate he wants to introduce.
I do not intend to detain the House very long but sitting on this side of the House, listening to Deputy Kitt, one could not come to any conclusion but that Deputy Kitt and members of the Fianna Fáil Party have faces of brass. For the past three weeks, a Land Bill, brought before the House by the Minister for Lands, has been under discussion. In Section 11 of that Bill the Minister tried to get a little bit of freedom—so far as I was concerned I thought it a very small bit—so that the Land Commission could not be in future the great dictators they have been for many years. Into the Lobby against the Minister and Deputies on this side of the House on that section trooped the very same brass-faced individuals who stand up here now and say that in Galway the Land Commissioners did so-and-so and it was wrong. In Knockbrack and Turloughmore, they say it was wrong. They go to Turloughmore and they condemn the Land Commission and Land Commissioners and then they come back and troop into the Lobby here against that big-hearted Minister when he tries to get some little authority and some little freedom against the commissioners who held down the uneconomic holders of this country for many years.
I should like Deputy Kitt to go to Turloughmore and to explain his attitude in walking into the Lobby after the Leader of his Party to support all these grand fellows who never did anything wrong, according to Deputy de Valera. We heard the cry: "If the Minister gets any authority, what is going to happen? It is the Clann na Talmhan fellows who are going to get it." I wonder is this Mr. O'Brien a Clann na Talmhan supporter? I do not think he is. The day is at hand, thanks be to God, when every citizen will get what he is entitled to as a citizen of the State and it will not make any difference for the future whether it is Turloughmore, Knockbrack or any place else that is in question. Uneconomic holders under the new Land Bill, well piloted through this House by the Minister, will ensure fair play for all sections of our people. The Minister is blamed by Deputy Kitt because he happened to go into an area where there are uneconomic holders. Deputy Kitt says that the Minister should go amongst the big ranchers and the graziers.
These are the people whose land you should take over.
I remember that it was to Lord Oranmore and Browne and people of that description his predecessors went, and that did not help the uneconomic holders. The one fact is that for the past year the Minister and the Land Commission have acquired 32,544 acres and relieved 1,250 uneconomic holders in this country. In previous years the highest figure was 8,000 acres acquired. I do not need to be a national teacher to say that these figures represent four times more land acquired than in any previous year.
In 1940 there were 38,631 acres acquired.
Speak the truth.
What was acquired in 1941?
The war years.
Take 1940 when there was a war on. There were 38,000 acquired then.
You have the effects of the war even yet and well you know it.
On that side of the House. The one thing that impresses me is that the Minister has acquired over 32,544 acres of land for the relief of congestion against an average of 8,000 acres acquired in previous years. These figures explain themselves, and I need not go into them. I am quite sure that the Minister will not allow that work to be held up as happened on previous occasions. Reading Deputy Killilea's speech last week and trying to put it together—it is a very hard job—I note that he says the Land Commission has land on its hands for the last ten years. It has, and for 15 years, and in some cases for longer. The Minister has been in power only for the last two years, and is he responsible for the Land Commission having land on hands for the past ten years? I know they have. I know that in my own area nest eggs have been left on the Minister's hands that, I am afraid, he can never tackle. Beside my place there are, roughly, 50 acres which have been for the past 15 years in the hands of the Land Commission and no division has yet taken place. This land has been promised to so many people that, if they all got some of it, it would not give them a grave apiece. They have been kept in a state of expectation for the past 15 years, all of them seeking a portion of that land.
May I congratulate the Minister with reference to Grange, Turloughmore? I join with Deputy Kitt there. I am not satisfied with what the Land Commission inspectors did there, and that is one reason why I voted to give them full authority so that they would not repeat such a thing.
Who worked the subdivision for a woman to get an increase for her son?
You will soon be as bad as Deputy Burke with his widow. The land at Grange, Turloughmore was taken over in 1949 and it was divided in March, 1950. That represents a change. I appeal to the Minister that as regards the 32,544 acres he has taken over, he should hold it for as short a time as possible. Divide it at the earliest moment amongst the people. This practice of holding land and setting it in conacre in such a way that in the end it would scarcely feed a worm, much less giving a holding to a poor congest, should be stopped. It would be much better to give a man a bag rather than a holding of outworn land. I am sure that Deputy O'Rourke will agree with my statement.
Some of it, anyhow; I have mental reservations.
In the Parliamentary Debates, Volume 120, No. 9, column 1312, Deputy Killilea is reported:—
"I will give the Minister a case in point at the moment. I will prove to the Minister also that this is a case where assistance has been given to an individual I know to hold the land by a pal of the Minister. It is what is known as the Flannery estate in a place called Corralea in the County Galway. I have asked a number of questions about that land over a number of years. The Land Commission had instituted proceedings before the Minister came into office and a scheme was prepared for those lands. The land was all ready to be dished out although the Minister denies that completely. The Land Commission had a scheme ready and I asked the Minister a question on the 28th February last why the Land Commission were not putting into operation that scheme. The Minister replied: ‘The Land Commission are not in possession of this estate and consequently cannot divide it.' Of course, I know what was wrong. I knew that this individual, this Flannery man, was a particular pal of a certain Parliamentary Secretary in this House and I knew that there was something going on behind the scenes...."
Some will say "A guilty conscience". Any representations that I ever made to the Land Commission were for the purpose of acquiring land and dividing it among uneconomic holders. I made representations in this case. This is a case where, only last year, the present Minister and the present Government brought this individual before the court and acquired his land from him in Galway. The price is not yet settled, I understand. Just imagine that there was a scheme prepared years ago, according to the Deputy, even though it was only last May that this Government brought this man before the court and acquired the land from him.
That could happen, too.
And a scheme was prepared years before that?
That could be.
We know what must have been happening then. It is a strange thing that you could divide land, give it to others, without being in possession of it. If it was my land and if any Deputy, or anybody, came down to interfere, when it had not been acquired, I would put the dog after him. I join with Deputy Kitt in saying I am not very well pleased with the division in Grange, Turloughmore.
Nobody could be.
The Minister is not responsible. I believe it is the Land Commission. I hope that in the future Deputies will try to stand behind the Minister and help him in undoing some of the things that have been done. The Land Commission are about to acquire some land near Glenamaddy. A certain uneconomic holder came to my home and he asked me to make representations on his behalf for an addition. He said he lived near the land, mearing it, and his valuation is £3 10s. —a very low valuation. I told him he would get land without my assistance, if those were his circumstances. I told him he was certainly bound to get land without any help. He said: "The other crowd were going round last night." I asked him what other crowd he meant and he said it was the secretary of the Fianna Fáil club. I will give his name if you want me to. He is a ganger of mine, I regret to say, and he is spending more of his time following up politics than anything else. By this individual joining the Fianna Fáil club, of course he was going to get a holding. They knew this man would get one, no matter what his political views were.
I appeal to the Minister to make sure that for the future politics will not count. Give every citizen his God-given rights, and make it plain to the people that for the future, no matter what their political views are, their cases will be treated on their merits. If they are Fianna Fáil they are entitled to think that way; if they are Fine Gael, Clann na Poblachta, Labour or anything else they are all our citizens, and there is one thing they expect and should get, and they will get it from a good, decent, honest Minister—and that is, a fair crack of the whip.
There was another statement by Deputy Killilea when he said: "I put down a question about Satchwell's land at Creggs." In the last general election that man was in the street at Creggs and he was defending Satchwell. He said that Satchwell's 700 acres should not be acquired, and that he was a good farmer; that there was not in Creggs as good a farmer, and why should his land be acquired? Now he puts down a parliamentary question although he well knows the position at Creggs and the position of the uneconomic holders there. Does Deputy Killilea want this done or not?
I appeal to the Minister to carry on his land work regardless of politics. I am sure that politics will not deter the Minister in giving to all our citizens a fair crack of the whip. It was a bad day and it ruined things in the past when land was given out to people other than to those who should get it. During his term of office, whether it be long or short—and I have not the slightest doubt that it will be long— I hope the Minister will never have to bring into operation the 1946 eviction Act. It was politics caused that Act to be put through this House.
It appears to me that the Deputies from Galway imagine Galway is all Ireland.
It is just a little bit.
And North Galway at that.
It so happens that there are many other places besides Galway. I am not going to criticise the Minister. He has not been a very long time in office. He came in when there was not very much land on hands. I am not going to blame anyone for that either. When we were trying to fight for our existence in a war situation, nobody could expect us to turn our attention to the division of land. The position with regard to housing just made it impossible to build houses. I do not think anybody can blame the Minister or his predecessor or the Land Commission for a certain slackness in the war years. We must take the situation as we find it.
There were, undoubtedly, some fairly large farms on hands for a number of years. The Parliamentary Secretary seems to think there is no excuse whatever for holding up these farms. On the face of it, that might appear so, but there are certain circumstances which, I would say, render it advisable to hold over certain farms, or small estates, for a time. May I explain that by saying that if there were other holdings in the immediate neighbourhood that were likely to be acquired I, at any rate, would think it a very foolish thing to start dividing a farm of 200 or 300 acres, giving a number of people patches, because that is what would happen in some cases? If such a thing were done, it would really mean that you would have a patchwork job made of the district. To avoid that, and it has been avoided in certain cases, the Land Commission hold over certain lands until they have acquired other adjoining lands. When these other lands are acquired you can have a proper scheme of division in a district.
After all, land division is something which we hope is going to last for a very long time. I think there are certain circumstances in which the Land Commission would be quite justified and in which the Minister would be quite justified—I do not care who the Minister is—in deciding that certain holdings should be held over for a time. The war situation made it impossible to divide certain lands. I do not think that either the Minister or his predecessors should be blamed for that.
I think that, on the whole, the position with regard to Land Commission work is fairly satisfactory. Of course, I know very strong denunciations have been uttered about the Land Commission. On the whole, I think they have done a pretty good job. In my opinion the great fault of the Land Commission is that it is too slow. If what Deputy Kitt has said is true, you can, I agree, go a bit too fast.
There is hardly any danger of that so far as the Land Commission is concerned.
I am not acting as an advocate for anybody. I think that, in certain cases, the Land Commission are too slow.
I am familiar with the case which Deputy Kitt mentioned, and I am satisfied that it was as fair a division of land as has ever taken place.
I do not know the place at all. The division of lands is a thing that requires great study, and all that I am saying is that it would not be wise to rush too fast. I suppose we may take it that the West of Ireland is the worst part of the country so far as congestion is concerned. I believe there are parts of Donegal which are very congested, too. In connection with that, we have to face the fact, whether we like it or not, that the large areas of land available for division have almost disappeared. We really have not any large areas of land for division, certainly not in the County Roscommon. I think, in all fairness, we must say that, taking the size of the county for what it is, there has been more land divided in the County Roscommon than in any other county. It was done in the time of the Estate Commissioners, by the Congested Districts Board and on a very large scale by the Land Commission since they took over.
I think someone made the remark that certain areas were left in a deplorable condition by Fianna Fáil. I know some districts myself where congestion is very bad, but that does not take away from the fact that a great deal of work was done between 1932 and 1939, particularly. In fact, I do not know how more work could have been done in that period. Certainly, in the County Roscommon an enormous amount of work was done. I do not know how far ministerial policy affects the work of the Land Commission, but between 1932 and 1939, 33,400 acres of land were divided. I am not able to give the number of allottees, but the number must be very big. In addition, new houses were built in practically all cases where full holdings were given and grants were given for the reconstruction of houses. I think that anyone with a fair mind would leave politics out of it altogether where the work of the Land Commission is concerned. I agree with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance that there should not be any politics in it at all. As far as I know, the Land Commission have not allowed that factor to enter into it at all. I think that any fair-minded person going through north and south Roscommon— through the heart of the county—must see that there has been an enormous amount of work done there. Perhaps that work could have been done in a shorter time.
What I feel about the Land Commission is that they are too slow in taking proceedings for the acquisition of land. I have in mind a number of cases in which the land was either offered for sale or the occupying tenant had died without leaving any immediate heir. I know, too, of a case where you had congests living in a townland surrounding a farm where a tenant died. The tenant had nobody but an old sister who was not depending on that land. Representations were made to the Land Commission on behalf of ten of these congests. I was assured at the time that an inspection would take place. I believe it was ordered. That went on for a considerable time. First of all the land was put up for sale. It was not sold. Then the Land Commission asked for a report, but there was such a long delay that an outsider came along and bought up the land. He could well afford to go to some other district which was not congested and buy land there. In the course of time he was duly registered as the owner. Nothing has been done since to relieve congestion in that area.
That can be remedied under the new Bill.
I am not blaming the Minister, but I am referring to the tardiness of the Land Commission in dealing with such cases. That was bad enough, but I think something worse happened in another townland which was only a few hundred yards away from the one I have mentioned. An old man died there. He had 70 Irish acres which, if acquired, would have given seven acres of an addition to each of the uneconomic holders in the area. The same procedure was followed there as in the previous case. We are told that the matter is still under consideration. That has been going on for years. The valuations of the poor tenants living there range from £5 to £7. If that land had been acquired and distributed amongst them their position could have been relieved. There is something wrong when cases of that kind occur. I attribute a lot of the fault to the procedure followed by the Land Commission. They first of all send for a report. They get a preliminary report. One would imagine that, when they get it, it would be enough to enable them to take proceedings. But no, they then ask for a detailed report, and while they are waiting for it somebody comes along and buys up the farm that is under consideration. Surely, there is something silly about that. That sort of procedure is not calculated to relieve congestion.
There is no danger that the Land Commission will rush anything.
I know there is not. I have referred to these two cases because what I have described has occurred again and again. I am sure there are many Deputies aware of the same thing happening in their areas. If the Minister speeds up the acquisition of land, I certainly will be the first to congratulate him.
I know that a lot has been said here and elsewhere about the size of economic holdings. I know that within the last few months small-holders in my neighbourhood have been allotted small parcels of land which still leave their holdings uneconomic. I do not know what steps the Land Commission can take in cases of that sort. If there was more land available in the district, well and good. I think the first consideration with the Land Commission should be to give economic holdings to people in a neighbourhood where land is being divided.
They do that.
Not at all. I know of cases in which they have given small additions of land, but despite that the old holding is just as uneconomic now as ever it was. The small additions given made very little difference.
Was it this year or last year?
This year. The scheme was made out last year, I would say, and about the beginning of this year it was parcelled out. I suppose they think that they are doing a good job—they are giving a certain amount of relief—but they are not making economic holdings. Either Deputy Beirne or Deputy McQuillan said that the people in the neighbourhood, or even some distance away, should get first preference when land is being divided.
I agree with Deputy McQuillan that there are areas in County Roscommon which are in a bad way and are highly congested. The Land Commission inspectors should go to them first and try to relieve congestion, but that has not been the practice. I am very fond of Galway people and Mayo people, too. We have got splendid tenants from County Mayo and nobody can find fault with them. I was surprised to hear some adverse criticism of them when they went up to the plains of County Meath but it was not justified.
Of course they have votes, too.
They always made a success of their holding and there was hardly a single exception. While they make splendid migrants, in our county preference should be given to local congests. The Minister, I hope, will at least indicate that the Land Commission should take up that attitude.
I am very much at sea as to how much, if any, land will be given to landless men. I asked the Minister last year if landless men were to be debarred altogether and he said: "Certainly not", but I am afraid that in practice they are and I do not think that is entirely right. Naturally people with small holdings must be catered for first, but where there is a good man who has stock and takes land by the 11-months' system or otherwise and if during the crisis he tilled land—land held by the Land Commission, perhaps —I do not see any reason, particularly if he is a married man, why he should not be given the chance of a new holding. Others may be taken who are not nearly so suitable. In most cases they are not able to buy a holding. If they were I would not have any sympathy for them.
I would like to reiterate what Deputy Kitt said about making roads into estates. I was interested in that last year. The Minister knows as well as I do that the practice now exists of making roads into farms and estates and leaving them as culs-de-sac. We have a terrible problem in Roscommon County Council. The position is and has been all the time that we cannot legally do anything about them. They are not regarded as public highways and therefore we are debarred. The Department of Lands, therefore, should ensure that those roads are connected with other roads, otherwise it is a foolish and a wrong thing. They look all right for five or six years—the Land Commission makes them well—but then they get full of holes and it is nobody's business.
The same applies to water supplies. In many limestone counties there is very little surface water and very few spring wells. The people in those areas—I know great numbers in some districts in County Roscommon—have not a drop of water to drink, but must cart it for long distances. The Land Commission should make a genuine attempt. It would not be costly. The cost of boring by the county council is between £200 and £400. It would be more now, probably nearer the £400 mark, but I think it should be done. In most cases the boring is successful. If a boring of 300 or 400 feet is made —sometimes much less—the water is got all right. There is a move—and rightly so—in local government to try to get a water supply to labourers' houses, but as a general rule in the country there is no water, and no individual farmer out of his own means is able to bore a well himself to procure a water supply, so it should be the policy of the Land Commission to procure a water supply where land division is done to any extent.
Others have referred to the large tracts of land in the Midlands. I hope we have the right Minister for Lands now. He passes through the plains of the Midlands even if he is going to Dysart, and I hope that he will take stock of these large areas. I was told by some people that from Ballymahon to Moate there are hardly ten holdings, and we know that these lands are only used for grazing. The Minister for Agriculture might think that a glorious thing, but I do not think so. These holdings should be made smaller, particularly if the people who are occupying them are not prepared to till or employ labour. They have no excuse, and it should be the Minister's policy to see that these holdings are kept down. I do not want any land confiscated, but the Minister says that he will give market value and leave the owners a reasonable share of land. Very well then, by making reasonable holdings the Minister is not doing an injustice to anybody, and it would be a good thing for the Irish nation.
A matter to which I wish to refer is the sale or grants of land for the making of sports pitches—we generally call them Gaelic Athletic Association pitches. I am glad that the Minister has continued the policy of giving land for sports purposes where land is being divided. Recently, however, at the very last General Council meeting I attended, a complaint was made that a clause is inserted in the deed to the trustees by which the land may revert in certain circumstances to the Land Commission. In other words, it debars the Gaelic trustees, whoever they may be, from absolute ownership and as a result the solicitor who acts on behalf of the Central Council has refused to agree that a grant should be made from the Central Council or other Gaelic bodies. It is a very serious matter, but after all it is rather a petty matter. I think that the procedure has been where the Land Commission agreed to give a pitch that they only charged the amount of the annuity yet to expire. Is that not the position?
Yes.
I think they should leave it at that and sign a deed of absolute ownership.
What difference does it make?
It makes a great difference.
They have the use of the fields and they are welcome to them as far as the Land Commission is concerned.
It would make a difference if they wanted to sell.
It is not regarded as absolute ownership. I myself hope to see local pitches, but we will be debarred from getting investments from the bodies who have the money because they say that we have not a real title to it. I am merely telling the Minister about this and asking him to look into it to see if the views of the Gaelic Athletic Association can be met.
Does the Deputy assert that the system precludes the Gaelic Athletic Association from getting financial assistance for erections on such a pitch?
I was not fully aware of this, although perhaps I should have been more conversant with it, until the last Central Council meeting. I was assured that these trustees have been refused grants on these grounds. I am merely asking the Minister to look into it and do not propose to argue about it.
Grants from the Gaelic Athletic Association?
Yes. They do not regard the title as complete and giving absolute ownership. Deputy Kitt and other Deputies referred to the acquisition and division of bogs. In many areas, and even in those areas where there is a lot of bog, turf is becoming scarce and many of the tenants are in a bad way. I know that the Land Commission have done a lot of work in this connection and I have always applauded them for it.
Wherever they have gone into a bog, they have done good work, have carried out drainage work and in many cases have made roads, but there is still a lot of work to be done. Wherever there are large areas of such bog, I advocate that the Land Commission should be urged to continue that good work, because I know of no more meritorious work in the poor districts. It is the only source of supply for the people there. People in other areas can buy coal, but in these boggy districts the people cannot and in many cases they could make a little money by selling turf to the people in the local towns and villages.
I have often been a devil's advocate, but, notwithstanding all the harsh things said about the Land Commission there is one section—I should say that I have not been primed in any way to speak on their behalf—for whom I should like to plead. There are a number of unestablished inspectors in the Land Commission, many of whom have given the best years of their lives to the work of the Land Commission. Most of them that I know are very hard-working men, and, in spite of what has been said about political pressure—I myself have often made recommendations, but I have never tried to force an issue with the Land Commission and would not do it—I can say that the Land Commission inspectors I have met are as free from political bias as any people I ever met and it is only fair to say that. Whatever Minister holds the office of Minister for Lands will get loyal service from these men and I know that, if I were to try to use political influence with these men, I would fail. Of that I am certain. If I tried to bring political pressure to bear on them, I would certainly fail. It is long past the time when these unestablished inspectors should be established and given pension rights. It is all very fine to say that they have been paid for the years they have served, but many of them have spent the best years of their lives in the service of the Land Commission and I saw some of them coming out with no provision made for their declining years. Whether Deputy de Valera or the Minister is right about the number of years it will take to divide the remaining land of this country, most of these men will continue to serve until they reach pensionable age and I urge that a scheme be devised to establish these officers and provide pensions for them.
There is one other matter I must mention and it is, perhaps, the only unpleasant thing I have to say. I do not know who is responsible for promotions, but I ask the Minister to look into that matter. I understand that a divisional inspector was recently appointed in the West of Ireland and that he was not at all as senior, and had not as long service, as some of those who were passed over. I do not know whether the Land Commission or the Minister is responsible, but it is a very serious thing if people are not promoted and rewarded according to their merit and seniority. I do not intend to mention names, but I believe that that divisional inspector has been appointed and that he was not entitled to the appointment according to seniority, or, for that matter, efficiency. It is a matter the Minister should look into, because to neglect to promote a man who is fully entitled to promotion is a grave miscarriage of justice.
I have always taken an interest in the work of the Land Commission. It is a very important branch of the public service, and, with the reservation I mentioned in the beginning, lack of expedition in certain cases, I think that, on the whole, they have done a pretty good job. I advocated last year that more responsibility should be left in the hands of reliable senior officers down the country.
Hear, hear!
I do not think for one moment that every little bit of tittle-tattle should be referred to the Land Commission in Dublin. In the final analysis, on whom are the Land Commission depending? They are depending on the senior inspector in charge of the particular area. They do not go down there themselves. Reports are sent again and again and finally they have to accept his word. Would it not be better to accept it at first? If the Minister can influence policy in the Land Commission, and I hope he can, I suggest that he influence it in that direction.
This Land Bill does that. I am sorry it did not go further.
It has not done it yet. We hope it will do it. I put these views before the Minister became Minister for Lands and I put them today again as fresh as ever. There are senior inspectors down the country who know more about the problems than any other people and who are honest enough to deal with them. Much more expedition would be brought about in that way.
I, as a western Deputy, am interested in congestion, because there is a fair amount of congestion in the constituency I represent. I might not have taken part in this debate at all were it not for the rather tart reply I got from the Minister the other day concerning a particular area in my constituency. It is an area in which there is very acute congestion and in which it is not necessary for the Land Commission to acquire land compulsorily. There are a number of derelict farms in the area which are advertised weekly in the local Press and sold by public auction. These farms are bought up by men who would be regarded as ranchers by those with holdings of £2 or £3 valuation. There are a number of such people in the area who were in the habit of taking conacre in years past, but now, because of the improved conditions since this Government came into office, that conacre is not available, and some of these men had to sell their pigs before they were half finished and some of their fowl as well as their horses. It is a matter of which I should like the Minister to take particular notice. I gave the Minister the particular area, the parishes in the electoral division, and I can say that I have an idea why the Land Commission has not been active in that area since the present Government was formed.
Progress reported; Committee to sit again.