Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 5 Aug 1953

Vol. 141 No. 9

Committee on Finance. - Adjournment Debate—Mayo Migrant's Allotment.

Mr. Blowick

To-day I addressed three questions to the Minister for Lands. One of them, Question No. 39, is the subject matter of this debate. This question originated out of a question tabled last Wednesday by Deputies S. Flanagan and Moran. The answer to that question given by the Minister was entirely misleading and for that reason I was constrained to put down this question to-day and thereby drag into the limelight of debate here the name of a migrant who was migrated from County Mayo to somewhere in County Meath a couple of years ago. The reason why I took exception to the Minister's reply was because the Minister replied to one question but did not reply to the other question. In fairness to Deputy Moran and Deputy Flanagan the question they put down was:—

"To ask the Minister for Lands if he will state the acreage, poor law valuation, purchase price and total cost to the Land Commission of thelands and buildings allotted in County Meath to a migrant in exchange for lands ... the comparative figures for the land surrendered and the amount of the net loss to the Land Commission on the exchange."

The Minister gave the loss on resale on that occasion but he did not give the value of the lands surrendered in his reply. In Question No. 39 to-day I asked:—

"... if he will state the estimated value of the land surrendered by Mr. Nally, Roundfort, and if the estimated total annuities on allotments were taken into account in the loss on resale which the Minister referred to in his reply to a question on 29th July, 1953."

The Minister in his reply to-day said:—

"It was estimated that the surrendered lands, subject to the existing annuity would, on resale, be security for additional advances to the amount of £2,181, being the amount of the occupation interest allowed to the migrant."

He said then:—

"I do not understand the point in the latter part of the question but, in any event, my reply to the question of 29th July last shows clearly how the loss on resale was calculated."

May I say, again, what I said to-day by way of supplementary, that I did not ask the Minister that particular question. What I wanted to get was the value of the land surrendered by this particular migrant. What I resent is that it would appear—I do not mind in what way my own character may suffer—as if this migrant, by some underhand action, had secured, while I was Minister for Lands, a holding of land from the Land Commission worth £9,000 and gave nothing in return for it. I resent that on behalf of the migrant in question, although I have not his instructions to do so, and, therefore, I am raising the matter here to-night. It was a rather nasty way to treat a fairly open question.

It should not be forgotten that this migrant surrendered 471 acres of land.The Minister, in reply to Question No. 38 to-day, told me that, roughly, within the last two and a half years, the sum of £2,454 has been taken in grazing conacre and meadow lettings over that short period. The truth of the matter is that the lands which this particular migrant surrendered were value, in my opinion, if put up in 50-acre lots, for £10,000. I believe, if sold in that way, they would realise more than that sum.

The Minister referred to occupation interest. I imagine that there are not many Deputies here who know what occupation interest is. Occupation interest, and the market value of land, have absolutely no relationship to one another, good, bad or indifferent. Occupational interest is purely a technical term. If I remember correctly, these words have never been defined. The term "occupational interest" is nothing more or less than a rough-and-ready step in the dark at the amount that a particular tenant purchaser has redeemed out of his total purchase money, plus a nebulous but, nevertheless, very real factor—what may be described as the sentimental value attaching to a holding or a home. The sentimental value attaching to a home or a holding plus the original amount of the purchase money which has been redeemed by way of half-yearly instalments at the time of the surrender, is what is known as occupation interest.

I also want to draw the Minister's attention to what I believe is an inaccuracy in his reply. He says that the new annuity on the Nally lands, when allotted, will be based on occupation interest.

Minister for Lands (Mr. Derrig)

I did not say "based".

Mr. Blowick

The Minister did not say based. The reply he gave me was this:—

"It was estimated that the surrendered lands, subject to the existing annuity, would, on resale be security for additional advances to the amount of £2,181, being the amount of the occupation interest allowed to the migrant."

These are not the same as the words which I have used, but what isthe use of the Minister quibbling and saying that is not what is meant. There lands will, eventually, I believe yield certain figures over a period of 47½ years. That is the usual period in the case of resale to tenants who are allotted land. Over that period of 47½ years, the annuity will yield back to the Land Commission a certain sum. I wanted to find out what that figure would be approximately. I know that, until the land has been actually allotted, the commissioners cannot determine what the resale price of the land will be.

What I am coming to is this: that three important things were left out of the Minister's reply last Wednesday which, in my opinion, were calculated to cast a reflection on a very decent migrant and a very decent man who got nothing, and asked for nothing, from the State, and who would not have anything that was shady or wrong, even as little as one halfpenny. The first thing that the Minister deliberately left out was the market value of the land, because it would appear from his reply last Wednesday that this man had got a farm of land, as a free gift, through some underhand work of mine when Minister for Lands, at a cost to the taxpayers of this country of £9,000. The Minister failed to mention the market value of the lands which he surrendered. He failed to mention the amount of the annuity that will be repayable over 47½ years by the allottees who will get the land. He also failed to mention, until I elicited the information by way of parliamentary question to-day, the fact that already a sum of £2,454 has been received by way of grazing rents and lettings. May I say that Deputy Cafferkey, Deputy Flanagan and myself have had questions down as to when these lands will be allotted.

The Land Commission have statutory powers to acquire and resume land for the relief of congestion. Under the 1950 Act, they have power to buy land for the relief of congestion. These Acts, and particularly the 1923 Act, oblige the Land Commission to dispose of any lands on their hands with the minimum of delay. In other words, they are not allowed to purchase landand hold it in their hands for the purpose of taking in grazing rents and of making money for the Department of Finance at the public expense. I know, of course, that the Minister cannot interfere statutorily with the Land Commission in certain matters which are clearly set out, but he should keep an eye on the Land Commission, as a whole, to see that the law is not violated, either by omission or commission. I say that it is entirely wrong for the Land Commission to take land and hold it indefinitely, thereby securing such huge amounts in grazing rents —almost £3,000 in approximately two and a half years.

The Land Commission took possession of that particular farm about mid-March, 1951, shortly before the change of Government. I have not the slightest doubt that Deputy Moran and Deputy Flanagan put down this question last Wednesday thinking that the Dáil would adjourn last week and that I would not have a chance of dragging out the truth. May I say, further, that the Dáil would, in all probability, have adjourned last week but for that particular question. Of course, what is really wrong in the County Mayo—it is very far away from the constituency of the Leas-Cheann Comhairle—is that Deputy Flanagan is, I am afraid, snooping around in Deputy Moran's area.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That does not arise.

Mr. Blowick

Perhaps it is as well that it does not. Deputy Moran is determined that, whichever of the two Fianna Fáil Deputies is going to lose his seat the next time, it will not be himself. It is hard to blame him. Consequently, this pair of gentlemen proceeded to put down this question in the hope of damning me politically, and at the same time injuring the name of a man who is a much more decent man than either of the two Deputies ever was.

I say that it was wrong for the Minister, and that he had no right to connive at giving the answer he did, by stating that there was a loss on resalewhich there is on every migrant's holding. There is a loss on every migrant's holding. Every standard migrant's holding costs the State at least £2,640. That was about the figure in my time and costs have gone up since then. The standard migrant's holding of from 33 to 40 statute acres, equipped with a house and out-offices, fences and a water supply, costs the State in the region of £3,000.

Mr. Killilea

Your term cost this country a good deal.

Mr. Blowick

When did Deputy Killilea become such a financial wizard as to sum up all this? We will hear him in Galway and we will hear what the Galway people will have to say on the subject.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We are discussing the subject matter of Question No. 39.

Mr. Blowick

No matter what we may say here, the people are the best judges and, whether we like it or not, they will have the last word.

Mr. Killilea

Have the deposit ready.

Mr. Blowick

I want to refer to this famous occupation interest which the Minister relied on last Wednesday to give an idea of the value of the lands. He said that this particular farm cost £16,000. It may come as a surprise to Deputy Moran that during my time— again if I remember correctly—I think I am not wrong in saying there was £26,000 paid for a farm in Westmeath. Does Deputy Moran, Deputy Flanagan or the present Minister suggest that it is wrong for the State to engage in this work of the relief of congestion? That is what I think is at the back of the whole thing. Deputy Moran's question was very carefully worded and the reply was equally carefully worded, to try to point out to the country that this work of relieving congestion is the veriest humbug, that it is a loss to the taxpayer and should not be indulged in further. We know from past experience that, when the man who is now Minister for Lands was Minister, in 1941, he closed down the Land Commissionby Order and used the emergency as an excuse. If it was not the present Minister, it was one of his colleagues in that Government.

Mr. Derrig

Of course that statement is absolutely incorrect.

Mr. Killilea

The man could not make a correct statement.

Mr. Blowick

Does the Minister deny that the Fianna Fáil Government, in April, 1941, issued an Order prohibiting the Land Commission from acquiring land except the few farms which were then in the machine, to use a technical expression?

Mr. Killilea

You are absolutely wrong.

Mr. Derrig

What has that to do with the question?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That has nothing to do with the question.

Mr. Killilea

The Deputy could not tell the truth.

Mr. Blowick

Deputy Moylan, shortly after we came into the House in 1943, gave us that reason time and time again and, if I am wrong, Deputy Moylan was then a liar and was giving us wrong information.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Blowick may not debate the whole Land Commission on this question. He must relate his remarks to the question.

Mr. Killilea

His case is a weak one.

Mr. Blowick

I am not anxious to discuss the Land Commission but, when Deputy Killilea interjects, trying to misrepresent the whole position, I feel tempted to reply to him although I know I should not.

Mr. Killilea

I know your form.

Mr. Blowick

I say to Deputy Flanagan and to Deputy Killilea and to Fianna Fáil that if they want to finish off the work of the Land Commission, in other words, if they want to abolish the Land Commission and ifthey think the work of relieving congestion is so much humbug, it will not be done by underhand methods such as the question. Every Deputy must be given a chance to debate the matter in the House and, at least, the Press will be given a chance to let the people know what is happening. That is what I believe is at the back of that question.

There is a loss on resale of every piece of land that was ever resold. That is what we voted £1,500,000 each year for. There is a loss running into £600,000 or £660,000 on resale which has accumulated over the years and which will have to be met by the taxpayers until the last of the land bonds is finally paid back.

Is it suggested that that is wrong? If it is wrong to bring that migrant from Mayo or any other migrant from Mayo, Galway, Clare, Leitrim, Sligo, Donegal, Kerry or West Cork, which are the principal congested counties, then I say that if I became Minister for Lands to-morrow morning I would continue that wrong. I want that to be perfectly understood. I maintain that congestion was an evil that none of us was responsible for but, having found it in our midst, once we got our Government, it was the duty of every Government to work strenuously to eliminate the last traces of it. That is what I was doing. I have no apologies to offer for it. I am proud of what I succeeded in doing. If I became Minister for Lands to-morrow I would continue where I left off. I want that to be clear to Deputy Killilea, although he says that some people own 300 or 400 acres of land with thistles on it. These are some of his friends. If that is the kind of friends he has he is welcome to them.

Mr. Killilea

That is another untruthful statement. That is a deliberately untruthful statement.

Mr. Blowick

This was just a malicious attempt to try to get some political capital. I believe the cause of the trouble is that Deputy Moran and Deputy Flanagan feel that the Government will lose the Galway by-election and that there will be a dissolution before the Dáil reassembles and theywant some little powder in their gun for me. That will not succeed.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister.

Mr. Moran

A Leas-Cheann Comhairle——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I have called on the Minister to conclude.

Mr. Blowick

I have not finished and if I thought the Minister would not be allowed in I would have more to say.

Mr. Moran

If the Minister wishes to conclude, I do not wish to detain him.

Mr. Blowick

I hope the Minister will not be interrupted as much as I was.

Mr. Derrig

Deputy Blowick has not shown us in what respect the answer to last week's question by Deputies Moran and Flanagan was misleading. He suggests that the fact that there was no reference to the market value of the lands surrendered is in the nature of an evasion or that it is misleading. Of course, the Deputy knows more about this case than I do.

Mr. Blowick

How do you know?

Mr. Derrig

Because he was in charge of the Department when this particular migration was first mooted and when it was approved and carried out. I can only go on the official documents available, which do not disclose that an estimate of the market value was calculated on the lands surrendered by Mr. Nally. I cannot say why that is so or why it should not be so, but that is the position.

The Deputy knows that, in dealing with migration, the Land Commission have already worked on what is called occupational interest, which corresponds to the capitalised value of the additional annuities which can be recovered from the new allottees on resale of the surrendered land. The market value of the surrendered land does not, in fact, arise in a practical way because in these migration cases, which are carried out by negotiationbetween the Land Commission and the migrant, the position is quite unlike the ordinary acquisition and resumption proceedings where payment has to be made for the lands.

I have here before me the form filled up by the Land Commission inspector with regard to the occupation interest and on that form the inspector first estimates the maximum annuity at which the holding can be resold and underneath that he estimates or gives what is the existing unrevised annuity. He deducts the unrevised annuity from the amount of the maximum annuity at which he reports that the holding can be resold, and that gives the excess annuity, and the value of this excess annuity capitalised is called occupation interest. That is the connection between occupation interest and the annuities. There is no question of any reflection on the migrant in question.

Mr. Blowick

Indeed there is.

Mr. Killilea

Not at all.

Mr. Derrig

There is a reflection on the administration of the particular case, if there be any reflection. This cost represented land surrendered. Two hundred and seventy-two acres were surrendered. There were other lands also purchased, but the holding in County Meath was given in exchange for the 272 acres surrendered. In fact, during the Deputy's time there were negotiations with another member of the family for an exchange. These negotiations did not result in success and the failure to achieve an arrangement by voluntary means in the case of the other member of the family meant that the proceedings were held up and the acquisition of these additional lands can only be secured now by resumption proceedings. These resumption proceedings have been undertaken and there is a petition against the resumption. That is the position.

The Deputy has lectured me about my general duty to see that the law is not violated. The superior courts are there and the persons concerned whose land is being taken or who are surrendering their land in exchange for other land are able, through their legaladviser, to see that they get their full rights. As regards the interests of the allottees, I cannot say that the interests of the incoming allottees have been wonderfully safeguarded, as the transaction, whether it be good or bad, has not in fact been completed and still awaits the acquisition of neighbouring lands before the scheme can be put into operation.

I do not take up the position that I tell the inspectors what they are to do. The inspectors' instructions from me are to do the best they can within the rules and give the best return possible to the community. That is the policy I stand for. I do not interfere with the inspectors or with the commissioners in the discharge of their duties, and I have never attempted to do so.

With regard to the lettings, it is quite obvious that the Land Commission are not gaining on the present position in which these whole proceedings have not been brought to a conclusion, because in the case of one portion of the lands where we got in £842, the outgoings, according to the answer to to-day's question, were almost half that—£395.

Mr. Blowick

What for?

Mr. Derrig

The interest on purchase money, the occupation interest, existing annuities revised, poor rates and herds' wages. These are the items. In the case of the second holding, that which was surrendered, and in respect of which the exchange was made, may I point out with reference to this question of the market value that there were two separate transactions. There was the land freely surrendered. Originally, the intention was that the whole property in Mayo should be surrendered in exchange for land elsewhere. Eventually, only portion of thelands was surrendered—the other portion was purchased—and that is the only portion of the Mayo lands which represents the exchange for the land that has been given in County Meath. With respect to these lands which have been surrendered in exchange, the amount of the outgoings was £1,357, whereas the amount received by the Land Commission in respect of the different kinds of lettings was £1,612, showing a very small margin.

There is no question of this Party not being in favour of the relief of congestion. During his term of office as Minister, the Deputy merely carried on the policy which was there before him and which, in one way or another, has been in operation since 1923. It is rather a pity that he did not extend his energies and activities generally throughout the country and that his activities seemed to be rather confined to restricted areas. The Deputy suggests that there is some comparison between the loss on resale in the case of an individual migrant's holding and where a standard holding is set up and the loss is estimated at £480. I told the Deputy that we have not the statistical information readily available, but if we got time we could find out generally what the position is. In respect of the average standard holding which is set up for a migrant, it is estimated that the loss on resale is £480. That may be compared with the loss on this particular transaction. The financial loss is the only loss that we were concerned with in the question asked last week and Deputies will be able to come to their own conclusions in the matter.

The Dáil adjourned at 8.30 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Tuesday, 20th October, 1953.