Speaking here before Question Time, I mentioned the undue length of time that has been taken in completing acquisition proceedings in numerous cases. I also mentioned that the expedition of acquisition proceedings was not of so much importance unless allocation was carried on in a much more expeditious manner than it has been done for a number of years. I mentioned a number of cases where estates had been taken for five or seven years. In some instances schemes were prepared and houses built. In one instance holdings were pointed out away back in 1948 to three migrants; since then the houses were built but not until last November was one of the three houses occupied; two houses still remain to be occupied and a considerable amount of the same estate yet remains to be dealt with. I mentioned another estate which was taken over in 1949 and which was let in conacre—by way of tillage, hay and grazing—for the past five or six years and there does not seem to be any sign of the Land Commission proceeding to deal with that estate either.
I mentioned some cases in my own area. It is not an area now where the question of land acquisition and division is so acute, because of all that was done in previous years. Nevertheless, when you find cases such as I have mentioned, it is difficult to understand why the Land Commission are so slow. I put a question to the Minister some weeks ago about one estate and he told me the delay was due to the more important work the Land Commission had to do. He did not mention even an approximate date when they might undertake the preparation of a scheme for the division of that estate. That is all very disappointing and very unsatisfactory. If it is lack of staff that is causing that delay and if the Minister comes here for permission to recruit the staff necessary, I am sure that those on this side of the House will gladly give it to him.
There are other instances I cannot understand. For example, there is one case where the Land Commission notified the owner of intention to acquire or resume the holding. At the time the notice was served, the holding was untenanted. Since then the owner has taken up occupation there. The area of land would be in the neighbourhood of 350 acres. According to a reply I got here from the Minister almost 12 months ago, the Land Commission now require only 21 acres. I cannot understand a decision of that kind. If they require only 21 acres out of 350, it must be for a few special people. I believe there would be a number of people within a mile limit of that estate who would required enlargements to their holdings. This matter will also create considerable dissatisfaction in the neighbourhood, if the Land Commission proceed to take 21 acres out of a holding of 350 acres. An action of that kind does not make sense to me.
The Land Commission would be well advised to shorten the period of acquisition. I know that the individual owners have their rights, that they have the court to go to in regard to various aspects of the case. They can object to acquisition or they can object on price. I cannot understand, however, why it should take three, five, seven or even ten years to come to a final decision. No one can understand that and it would be very difficult to explain it away. It is unfair to those who are living in the hope that they will get land there. It is unfair also to the owner himself because, while that threat is over his head, that nearly all his land or a considerable portion of it may be taken, he will not have the interest he otherwise would have in cultivating and improving that land.
Land division has been going on for about 52 years. We should have come to the time now when the Land Commission would be in a position to make a statement giving the approximate area still available for acquisition. It should be possible for them also—and I am sure they would have the figures available—to tell us the number of congests. For instance, they could take those under £15 level or under £10 level. If we could have that statement from the Minister, we would know what the available land could do to relieve the number of congests that there are. If we have only 500,000 acres— and I expect that would be as much as we would have at the moment—and if you give a 33 acres holding to a migrant, you would give new holdings to about 10,000, I except. If you were to give an average of 10 acres extension to existing holdings of others, I suppose you would relieve 17,000. That would be 27,000 in all. I believe that the number of landholders under £15 valuation is much greater than 27,000. Consequently, land division alone will not solve the congestion problem. It will undoubtedly relieve congestion, but it certainly is not and cannot be a final solution for it.
I put a question to the Minister, I think it was on the 27th April, regarding the Shannon valley flooded areas. I asked him when he intended to implement the scheme that he gave us to understand the Land Commission were preparing or had prepared and if he would state whether those who have got farms in previous years but who because of the inadequacy of the grants given for the erection of houses, were unable to proceed. He told me in Banagher the evening that the conference was there that that difficulty was being overcome. I put the question to know if that difficulty had been overcome as in the case of future allottees, if it would be retrospective to those who were given similar holdings but who could not erect their houses, say, from 1946 or 1947 onwards. He told me that the scheme would be implemented but that it would have to await the report of the American expert who was coming over to give advice on the Shannon flooding.
Deputy McQuillan put a supplementary question in this connection asking if that report would be available inside 12 months. The Minister replied that he could not say and then Deputy McQuillan put another supplementary question asking if that meant that the implementation of the scheme would be held up until that report was furnished. The Minister replied that it did not necessarily mean that but that it was only prudence to await the report.
I considered that reply very vague. I did not like to challenge the Minister on that occasion and I avail of this opportunity to refer to the matter. If nothing is to be done for those people for 12 months, or maybe it will be five years, then there was very little use in making promises to them both on the evening of the conference in Banagher and previous to it during that period of time.
A number of the people in the flooded areas of the Shannon in my constituency were relieved away back in 1946 and 1947 and even previous to that. They were taken out to an estate at a place called Moystown, in County Offaly. Houses were erected there I presume by way of giving people a grant or an advance but there were some others who were given holdings or extensions a distance away from their existing holdings at a later stage and the cost of building having increased very considerably, some of them were not able to erect their houses. We had a few cases where the Land Commission had already notified them of their intention to take back the land from them. That would be a very serious situation as far as they were concerned because some of their families are large and the health circumstances of some of them were anything but good.
I hope the Minister will take this question up with the Department and see that in respect of those who were unable to erect houses with the grants that were allocated previously, the grants would be considerably increased or that otherwise the Land Commission would have the houses built as they have done for migrants by direct labour or on the contract system. If not, all the promises are so much hot air.
In regard to the improvement of estates, a great deal of very desirable work was carried out but in many instances the inspectors who laid out the work did not take certain things into consideration. They did not take into consideration the fact that the erection of fences and the making of roads obstructed the natural flow of water to the out-fall and that is what happened in a great many instances. It is not the responsibility of the present Minister or even his predecessors. This happened many years ago and it has been happening all the years along.
As I say fences were erected and roads were laid with the result that that natural out-fall has been obstructed and a great deal of that land is now water-sodden. It is impossible to drain that land unless some steps are taken to enable whatever authority would be dealing with drainage, whether it be under the Land Commission scheme or otherwise, to undertake the work. If the people concerned were to carry out the work they would be regarded as trespassers and I presume they would not be permitted to make any drains along the natural out-fall to take away that water.
We have had a number of statements here, one from a Deputy in the Midlands, who strongly resented the migration of congests from the West to the Midlands. He held that a considerable number of larger-sized holdings should be left or that otherwise our live-stock industry would fall off and we would not be in a position to produce the proper type of live stock for the foreign market. What is the extent of the largest type of holding that should be left? Is it desirable to leave an almost unlimited number of acres, up to 1,000 and 2,000 acres, to people who will use it almost entirely for grazing? That, in my opinion, is a very wrong policy. The migrants who have come from the West to the Midlands, have, in the main, used their land very well. They have made a success of it and I would like to see that policy of migration continued, taking cognisance, of course, of the local congests, and seeing that they get fair treatment in the first instance, which would make for better relations between the migrants and the local people.
Some years ago, I think it was in 1946, a Bill was introduced in this House which was very sharply criticised by the then Opposition, and that was a Land Bill which enabled the Land Commission to take possession of holdings which were not being properly used.
I do not know whether that Act has been invoked in many instances. I believe it has been invoked in a few, in order to dispossess those people. In my part of the country it has been invoked in one particular case and I regard it as most unfair. If it had been worked out generally and applied to all without discrimination nobody could find fault with it, but in this particular case the person whom I have in mind should have been dealt with in a more gentle manner and he should not have been the first to be aimed at.
This was a case where the man's uncle was employed by the landlord. He got the holding of land in lieu of his livelihood. Now the nephew, who would, I am sure, have continued in that employment after his uncle's death, got the holding from his uncle but because it was not a vested holding the uncle did not have the right to bequeath it to him. However, he has been in possession and has been served with a number of notices for possession. The last notice he got was a writ to appear, if he so desired, in the Circuit Court in Galway some weeks ago. I cannot understand why that man should not have been given the right to sell that holding, provided that out of the money he got for it from the sale of the holding he would pay back to the Land Commission the amount of money advanced for carrying out improvements.
