Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 2 Jun 1955

Vol. 151 No. 5

Committee on Finance. - Vote 47—Lands (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following motion:—

That the Estimate be referred back for reconsideration—(Tomás Ó Deirg).

Mr. Blaney

When the debate on this Estimate was adjourned yesterday, I was more or less replying to certain statements made by Deputies opposite, and, in particular, by Deputy Fagan of the Fine Gael Party. In his statement, he gave us to understand that the Land Commission were working too fast, that they were dividing land much too quickly and that therein there was a danger to our national economy. The real danger then pointed out as flowing from this vast division of land was that the large farms of the country would disappear and we would have nothing in their place but small farms, and, having nothing but small farmers, we would become as the Danes have become, slaves. I have already dealt with the matter of the type of Danish slavery referred to and with how ridiculous this statement really is. Far from being slavery, it would appear that by dividing up the land on the system obtaining in that country, we would increase the prosperity of our nation and have our people very much better off.

What is disturbing, however, about this statement and this type of outlook is that it comes from a Deputy of many years' standing in one of the largest Parties in the House and it is really something we would need to take note of and inquire into, to find out whether or not this outlook, expressed by Deputy Fagan, should by any chance be a reflection of the policy in regard to the division of land of Fine Gael, because, if this were so, the people of the country should be made aware of the outlook of that Party, if that outlook is as expressed by Deputy Fagan. They should be made aware that Fine Gael would not be in favour of dividing the land of this country and do not want or seek to have small farmers in these Twenty-Six Counties.

They would need to know that farmers living on small farms are sometimes to be avoided, that they are an evil in any country in which they exist and that, in fact, they can be regarded as no better than slaves. If that should be the Fine Gael policy, which I hope it is not, then our people should know that that is Fine Gael policy and they should be made aware of it at the earliest opportunity because up to the present time they have not been made aware of it and they may have been mislead in regard to this matter as they may have been misled in other ways by Fine Gael propaganda.

On the question of leaving undisturbed large ranches in this country, I know that we on this side of the House do not believe that the large ranches are absolutely an essential part of our economy. If we can have the land of those ranches divided up and more usefully worked than they are at present —and, God knows, in many cases that would not be very difficult—if we can have them divided in such a way that a greater production can be taken from those lands then we can and will divide them on any and on every opportunity we get. We do not believe these lands should be left to those ranchers who would like to have cattle and only cattle on them—and not only would they like only to have cattle on them but they would not even want to grow the produce on some of their land to feed their cattle. They would prefer to get the small farmers from tillage counties such as my own county of Donegal to grow the crops for them and give them their grain and other crops for a bad price and, if they could not get them at a bad price, they would like to continue importing feeding stuffs from abroad. We have never believed and we never will believe in that system.

We believe the land is there to be used by the people of this country to its best advantage and we believe that to use it to its best advantage entails not only a greater production but also, where possible, a greater amount of employment. No one in his senses will suggest that land left in large tracts of hundreds and possibly thousands of acres under large heavy dry cattle is really giving employment in the way that land can give employment if tilled and properly farmed as lands are farmed in other parts of the country. We also believe that the people in the Midlands and in Deputy Fagan's constituency are not all of a mind with him in resenting the migrants who come in from the West. In many cases, these migrants are welcomed by the local community and in the short number of years some of them have been in the Midlands they have helped in many ways the life and the economy of the part of the country in which they have been settled. We consider that more of that can be done and should be done.

Furthermore, we believe that people such as Deputy Fagan should not be countenanced in this House in view of his outlook in regard to this matter which he expressed here yesterday. We believe also that Fine Gael, as a Party, should either publicly dissociate themselves from his remarks, through some of their spokesmen, or that they should stand up and say that Deputy Fagan was speaking for Fine Gael and that what he said represents Fine Gael policy. On the other hand, I should like to ask Deputy Fagan and his Fine Gael colleagues why it is that, if they do not believe in land division and if they think the Land Commission is working too fast, they are nevertheless supporting it. I should like to ask them why they are keeping as Minister for Lands a Deputy from the Clann na Talmhan Party who does believe in land division and who wants to see the land divided, where possible. Why carry on with the present Minister in that office if they do not believe that this job has to be done and should be done?

On the other hand, if it was only a case of Deputy Fagan giving his personal views then so much the better. It is better that it should be that way than that his Party should hold such views but it is something that should be cleared up and it should go from this House that we do not agree with Deputy Fagan when he talks of Danish farmers as slaves and when he talks in scathing terms of small farmers as a community in this country.

There are many other matters which I should like to mention very briefly on this debate. When I began my speech here yesterday I intended to talk about these other matters but such was the tirade we heard from the opposite side of the House immediately before I began my speech that I was led away from what I really wanted to say. The statement made here yesterday that the Land Commission were dividing land and working too fast is, I think, the greatest bloomer we have ever heard in this House from anybody on any subject under the sun. Nobody thinks that the Land Commission are working too fast. Nobody thinks that, generally speaking, the Department of Lands work too fast nor, for that matter, will anybody agree that any Department works too fast. Our usual trouble with all Departments, for various reasons, is that when we want anything done they are much too slow. While that is true of all Departments I think nowhere is it more true than of the Land Commission. The Land Commission have been in existence for many years. They were set up years ago with a very definite purpose in mind. That purpose has not been attained and, judging by the progress made so far, it is not likely to be attained in our time—and if only the same rate of progress is continued with then I doubt if the purposes for which it was originally set up will ever be attained.

We do not seem to be getting the lands divided and rearranged as we had hoped. It would seem that there are a number of reasons why the Land Commission cannot go faster. I do not say that all of these reasons, added together, are sufficient to justify their slow rate of progress but undoubtedly certain of these objections and these snags are holding them up. That is where I believe the Minister or any Minister for Lands should be able to do something. As we see it at the moment, the acquisition of land is one of the big troubles. Far from improving the situation, the legislation of more recent years has tended to make a complete dead end of the acquisition of land in that the clause about giving market value for land does not, in fact, operate and apparently cannot operate in the minds of the Land Commission. Why this thing cannot be operated is more than I can see. Why the Land Commission cannot go out when a farm is for sale and purchase it for what is regarded as market value, I do not know. There is no great reason that I can see why they cannot do it.

If I want land or if anybody else wants land and there is a farm on the market then the only consideration is whether or not we have the money to buy it. I have never heard of an instance coming before the House where the Land Commissioners, through their Minister, made the case that they had not the money to buy a particular farm. The money is usually available so far as I know and yet although the lands become available they are not always taken up by the Land Commission even though they may need land in the particular area in which it is offered. Why cannot they get going? Why cannot they get a move on? Where land is offered, where it is needed for rearrangement and redistribution, why cannot they get that land? If it is on the market, so much the better; it should be easier to get it then than when they have to acquire it compulsorily.

You have this kind of thing happening in certain cases. You have the Land Commission endeavouring to get land and over a number of years they will have their minds made up that a certain portion of land is very desirable in a particular district. Apparently they have gone into the matter and have decided that so many acres of land in this particular townland or townlands would make the adjoining holdings of an economic size. After years, that particular holding may come on the market—and what happens? Not what we would expect. We do not find that when it comes on the market it is immediately taken up by the Land Commission and rearranged.

In my own part of the country, there is a farm that ten years ago was being sought by the Land Commission for purchase by agreement. They were then of the opinion that such a farm would be very useful in order to give economic holdings to nine or ten people in smaller holdings around about. During the past 12 months the farm that they sought ten years ago by agreement was on offer, the owner having died. What happened? They allowed somebody else to purchase that farm and to settle down in the midst of that congestion, just as it was ten, 20 or 30 years ago and as it will be in another 20 or 30 years. What I want to know is, if ten years ago the situation in a particular district was such that the Land Commission believed they should purchase the land for rearrangement, why—nothing having changed in the meantime except the Government—should they decide now that the need is not there any longer, that they do not want that farm, although they knew it was available and was on offer to the public?

I raised this matter here and I was given very little satisfaction by the Minister. All I want to know from the Minister here to-day is this: did the Land Commission, unaided and unabetted by anybody in politics or otherwise, without any push from either side—did they within the last two or three months decide of their own volition that rearrangement was not necessary, despite the fact that ten years ago in the same circumstances they decided that it was necessary.

Mr. Blowick

Not in the same circumstances.

Mr. Blaney

Now, the Minister does not get that cock to fight here to-day. I know this area like the back of my hand. I knew it ten years ago and long before. Nothing there has changed, except that the owner of that farm has since died.

Mr. Blowick

And three people moved out of the village since.

Mr. Blaney

That farm was offered for sale and the Land Commission were made aware of it, by me if by nobody else, and they did nothing about it. I want to know why that change of heart took place. I am suspicious that it did not take place entirely in the minds of the Land Commissioners, without a little jab from left to right from somebody in office, or somebody with some power somewhere or other to give the wink as to what should be done.

In addition to this particular area that I talk about being congested, the rundale system operates in the locality also. The rundale system is something that should not exist to-day. I say that with all due respect to everybody in the Land Commission who has been working over the years to get something done by way of settling up our holdings. The rundale system would not exist if the job had been carried on as it should have been since the Land Commission was established. It is a disgrace to find, after all these years, that you have holdings still on the rundale system. It is a system that gives no satisfaction to anyone and that causes more friction and more trouble in rural communities than any other thing I know of. You have a field here and a neighbour next to it and you go across his land to get into your own field; you have someone else crossing over your land to get into another field; and there are no fences between any of them to mark the boundaries, nothing in many cases but a few stones stuck here and there in the ground.

That is something that should not be in evidence to-day, if the Land Commission were doing their work and if the various Ministers concerned in the Department of Lands had seen to it that they did their job. It is not only a question of getting the best possible results out of the land held by these people. It also means an end to the rundale system, an end to something that is a cause of friction and trouble and that very often has developed into family feuds over the years.

These things are known to the Minister sitting opposite. They are known to the Land Commission also. What this House and the people would like to know is what they are going to do about it. They are doing very little about it at present and seem to have very little intention to do anything. It is all very well to point out how many holdings were rerarranged in the past 12 months, how many acres of land were redistributed. what you have really to look at and ask yourselves is: "What did we not do during the past year that is crying out to be done; what is there to be done that we have not done and what are we going to do about it in the next 12 months?"

The Land Commission have another fault that is very apparent in some parts of the country. They take over lands and for one reason or another— many of the reasons being quite reasonable and legitimate—the land they have taken over cannot be redistributed or divided until further land becomes available. In the meantime these lands already held are let by conacre on the 11 months system. I do not mind their being let. I do not mind their being used by the people who want to take them and pay a rent for them. What I object to is that these lands are held in that manner over a long term of years and in those lettings no consideration whatever is given to the fact that at some future date some unfortunate will get them as a holding from which he is expected to make a living. In the intervening years the land is run out of condition, everything in it is taken from it and nothing is put back. You cannot blame people who take the land this year if, knowing they will not have it next year, they try to get all they can out of it and put nothing into it.

It is up to the people holding the land—it is up to the Land Commission, when they are responsible—to ensure that the land is kept in proper heart and, if anything, that it should be improved for the future tenants rather than made barren and derelict and useless, to be saddled on some poor unfortunate later, who thinks he has got something when in fact he has got nothing. That is going on and something should be done to stop it. It should be stopped immediately and not next year or the year after. If we cannot divide the land we take over to-day and if we must let it, then we should ensure that it is properly used, and not abused as is the case now.

Think of the people who are going to get that land eventually, think of them as tenants or farmers in the future, who will expect to make a living from such land. Do not think of them as units you are going to place on a particular holding so as to be able to say in this House that so many units have been placed there in the last 12 months, and "is not that a fine job?" There is no use making units or numbers of them, they must be given land that will give them a return for their work. Land that has been let for years by the conacre system is not suitable for anyone after it has been changed round and trampled over for ten years in conacre, with nothing going into it and everything being taken out of it. When you put a farmer on that land you are really committing him to slave labour, as he will not be able to make anything of it unless he has a lot more money than one expects such people to have.

Another matter that has been aired here on numerous occasions is the question of what is regarded as a landless man. That was mentioned by a number of speakers yesterday. I would like again to point out, in regard to my own county, the meaning of that phrase "landless men" in regard to land division and distribution. It is rather unique—it may not be confined to Donegal, but it is certainly not general—that we have a system whereby we have had people for years and their fathers before them working the same land, the same fields.

They have held that land year in and year out under almost a perpetual letting or lease. That land is not theirs. It is not in their ownership. It belongs to part of an estate which at some time or another may be taken over by the Land Commission, and in some cases in the past many of these places have been taken over. My grievance is that these men are, in the main, regarded as landless men. They are not given the same consideration as a small uneconomic holder who may adjoin these particular estates and they are not therefore given a fair crack of the whip when it comes to dividing this estate on which they and their fathers before them have laboured.

Can you regard such a man as a landless man and pass him over as somebody who should not be given land because he does not own it? Some of these people in my county are the best farmers we have. They have more know-how on farming than many of those with much bigger and better farms of their own. They are traditional farmers and tillage farmers. They own their own machinery; they have their own animals and their own stock; they have carried them down through the years and they are farmers in every way except that they do not own the title deeds to the land which they and their fathers before them have worked.

When the Land Commission come along and take over an estate on which these people are working, we find such men being regarded, to all intents and purposes, as landless men. These are the people who should be considered in the first instance. It is in the eastern part of my county particularly that the system has been operating. When land is being divided, what is the use in moving in migrants from any other part of the county, relieving congestion along the western fringe, if you create new land slums, new congestion, in the very area you are dividing? What is the point in relieving congestion in the west if thereby you re-create congestion in the east and with this added disadvantage: the people from the west generally have lived through it and know what congestion is. They have learned the hard way how they can live in a congested district; but these people in the east who are being moved out and left without an acre of land either because of rent or for some other reason, are people who have been working land, who know no other way of living. Where are they to go? What are they to do? Surely any Minister, any Department and any commission that go into this matter thoroughly— and I do not believe they have gone into it thoroughly yet—will agree with me that these people who are traditional farmers, who have earned their livelihood as farmers and are good tillarge farmers, should get first consideration as the land becomes available, over and above the migrants. By all means bring in the migrants and plant them so that they can supplant the planters of old who are rampant in that part of my county. I would be delighted to see the migrants coming in when these people who are now tilling the land have been satisfied. That part of my county was planted. Let us plant it again but plant it properly, with the right type of farmer, not the rancher, not the big man. Give us the ordinary hard-working people who are there willing to take that land and who have in many cases been working that land and paying rent to the planters of old.

Let the Minister not think that this is a matter I am airing here for any political purpose. Neither do I want the Land Commission to take it that I am unduly criticising them in this matter. I believe this system or this way of living in the east of my county is rather unique. It may occur in some other parts of the country but it certainly does not generally occur. Look on this matter as something applying to my county only. Do not look on it in the general way that you look on land division and redistribution of land in other parts of the country because in doing that you are not being fair to the people in my county.

Ours is a different system and a different pattern. If you are going to see that pattern is properly rearranged you must look on it in a different manner from the manner in which you look at the rest of the country. I am asking not for special consideration for these people, not for anything out of the ordinary but that in dealing with their case you should have full regard to the system and the pattern, to the tradition of these farmers who are regarded as landless because they do not actually own the land which they have been working for generations.

It was mentioned here by speakers that migration is no solution to our problem of congestion. I do not agree that it is no solution. I would be likely to agree that it is not a full solution but to say it is no solution is entirely wrong. It is a help in many cases and being a help I feel sure that anything that has been said in that strain will not interfere with the Minister or the Land Commission in going ahead with their rearrangement programme and their migration of farmers from the western seaboard.

Migration is a help and we want to see it done more speedily and in many more places. We want to see it done fast because one of the big reasons— apart from any other reason we may have heard—for getting it over and done with is that congestion is actually inclined to grow as fast in many places as it is being dissipated in others. If we do not get a move on we will find that we might as well be marking time because what we are doing to-day is being undone somewhere else tomorrow due to the slow pace at which this work has been carried on.

Let us go ahead with this work and get it done. If there are snags existing at the moment that are hindering the Land Commission, the Department of Lands and the Minister, let them find out what those snags are. Let the Minister come into this House with the remedy for those snags. I can assure the Minister that in suggesting remedies for such snags he will not be hindered in any way from this side of the House. We will be glad to see any measure being brought in that will help to push ahead with the rearrangement of our land in this country. Anything he can do by way of legislation will, I am sure, have the help and co-operation of this side of the House.

We should not keep on talking about the hindrance certain things are. We should not say we would have done this or that but for a particular snag. Let us not be excusing ourselves year in and year out: "We would do it but for the operation of certain legislation." If there are snags and if new legislation is required surely the proper thing to do is to put that legislation on paper, bring it before the House, pass it and get on with the job.

Coming back to the statement made that migration is no solution for congestion and that only industry and afforestation can relieve congestion, I say it is a big help and would be an even greater help to the relief of congestion if it was pushed ahead much faster, and that is what I am asking the Minister to do. Although disagreeing with those who made the statement that it was no help, I want to agree with them when they say that this question of afforestation and industry can be a very great help. I do not say, however, that it is the only solution. I say let us have migration, afforestation and industry, let us have all three for the west of the country. Let us push ahead with them as quickly as we can and in addition to dealing with migration let the Department of Lands get its skates on in the matter of afforestation also.

There will be a debate on that matter later and, therefore, I will not go into it, first of all because I would not be allowed and secondly because it is not appropriate to this debate. Let the Department of Lands go on with its job. Do not let that Department be looked upon as something that is there but is doing nothing. Do not let us have either the Department or the Land Commission being regarded down the country as a limbo to which letters may go but from which no replies ever issue.

The Department of Lands is much too important to reach the state it has reached at the moment. We must pull it out of that condition. Let us rejuvenate it; let us give it the powers that it is lacking and let us bring in the necessary legislation enabling it to do its work, and I can tell the Minister that when he brings such legislation before this House he will get the full co-operation of the Fianna Fáil Party.

So I say to the Minister let him, as head of the Department of Lands, and in fairness to himself and to his Party and to the country, remove the snags that exist in his Department; let him take away the boulders that are in the way of the speedy acquisition and division of land and of the other aspects of the Department's work. Let him get on with the job of having the very necessary work of the Department carried out more speedily so that our nation will be one of farmers, many of them small farmers but all of them farmers of whom we can be proud and not, as Deputy Fagan said, people of whom we should be ashamed. We are proud of our small farmers and let the Minister see that we have more of them in the future. The more of them we have the better the country will be economically and otherwise.

Mr. P.J. Burke

I want to make a few points here regarding County Dublin.

Mr. Donnellan

Do not forget Mayo, Deputy.

Mr. P.J. Burke

There is one rule of the Land Commission which is debarring some of our uneconomic holders in County Dublin from getting decent farms. This regulation is that they will not get any land if they are over a mile away from the land that is being divided. I think the distance is a mile.

Mr. Blowick

Yes, and the rule is a very stiff one.

Mr. Donnellan

Not an Irish mile either.

Mr. P.J. Burke

At the moment there are several small uneconomic farmers in County Dublin who have to travel nine or ten miles to land which they have set. They are very good tillage farmers and I would appeal to the Minister and to the Land Commission to consider favourably my representation on their behalf. I have raised this matter on numerous previous occasions because I feel that grave hardships are being inflicted on these uneconomic holders in North County Dublin by this regulation. If a farm is divided and if it is just outside the mile, an uneconomic holder will not get part of it. These men, who are most industrious, are paying from £15 to £40 per acre for land and they have to travel anything from nine to 15 miles in order to work that land. I put it to the Minister that it is time that rule was waived where it applies to so many uneconomic holders in this particular area. I say that in the light of experience I have had.

Another point I want to make is on behalf of a big number of conacre farmers. These men have been in occupation of land, let to them in conacre, over a long number of years. I would ask the Minister that where people who have been working conacre for a long period become dispossessed by Land Commission acquisition of that land these men would get consideration. Surely, where they have worked this land for so many years, they are entitled in fairness to special consideration. I have spoken many times before about this problem as has Deputy Blaney about the same problem in Donegal. These people deserve sympathetic treatment. They deserve at least the same treatment as a herd on an acquired estate would get. I assure the Minister that this problem is acute, particularly in my constituency; it is a matter of depriving these people of their livelihood.

Still another burning question is that of the Land Commission roads in County Dublin. I have not studied the position in that regard in other parts of the country so I shall speak of the situation in Dublin only. I am not making this point now as a criticism of the Minister or of his predecessor because I think it is a matter of Land Commission policy to make roads which in fact are not roads at all. The Dublin County Council will not take over these roads because they are not properly laid. Farmers find it impossible to use these roads to get into their holdings. I think the Minister should consider the question of bringing about some co-ordination between the Land Commission and the Local Government Department so that the roads could be automatically handed over to the local authorities for maintenance.

Mr. Blowick

We are quite willing to do that. If the council do not take over the roads it is not our fault.

Mr. P.J. Burke

Of course it is your fault because the council are not prepared to take over roads which are not properly made. What I am suggesting is that there would be some sort of co-ordination between the Department of Lands and the Department of Local Government so that the roads would be properly made and could be taken over and maintained by the county council. At the moment these roads are no better than boreens or prairie tracks and they have been disimproving over the years. It is time that something was done about it.

The Minister, and the Minister for Local Government, should get together and establish some form of coordinating machinery for dealing with this and eliminating the grievances which every Deputy is up against where any land has been divided or where Land Commission roads have been made. The Minister knows that what I am saying is true. I have raised this question here many times. I wanted to raise it on one occasion on the Adjournment, and I am now taking the opportunity of doing so.

All sorts of grievances are associated with this question of bad roads, and I suggest it is time that the Minister and the Land Commission should come to a determination to try and eliminate those grievances and to say that in future they are going to do a good job on these roads. If that is done there will be no necessity for Deputies to raise this matter any more in the House. I am not blaming the Minister or his predecessor for the fact that such roads have been made. In my opinion, these roads are a disgrace in any country, and it is most unfair to the people who have to live on them in their present neglected state. Business people and others have refused to deliver goods to the people who live on those Land Commission roads. It is impossible to take threshing and other machinery along them. The Dublin County Council will not take them over. In conclusion, I hope that something will be done at once about these prairie tracks.

Mr. Beegan

I have been listening to debates on this Estimate since I became a member of the House in 1932. There have been debates on this whole question of the completion of land purchase and the division of land. It is now 52 years since land division activities commenced in this country, and undoubtedly I could pay compliments to the Congested Districts Board, to the Estates Commissioners and also to the Land Commission for the very useful work that has been accomplished all over that period. At the same time, there are very few people who would believe that it would take that length of time to complete land purchase and land division here. We all admit that 52 years is a very long period of time, and yet the question of land acquisition and land distribution seems to be as live an issue in this House as ever it was.

I believe that the proceedings regarding land acquisition are all together too prolonged. The preliminary notification of the intention of the Land Commission to acquire or resume a holding is furnished, I presume, to the owner or his solicitor. There are a considerable number of preliminaries, and these go on for a number of years in many instances. Take an owner of land who has land in a number of townlands. The various townlands are mentioned, and the area in each town-land owned by the occupier. That is left hanging on for a very considerable time. Eventually, a decision is come to and a certain amount of land in some of the townlands is taken. The owner is left with the remainder. I cannot understand why that decision could not have been given in a much shorter period than five, seven or ten years as happens in many instances. In my opinion it is most undesirable. In the first place, it is holding out certain hopes to the people concerned in getting land, and in the second place it has this effect that the owner of the land has that threat hanging over his head during all those years. Consequently, he is not going to take the same interest in working his land as he otherwise would. That is one of the faults that I have to find with the Land Commission activity and the system that is being operated.

It is all right to advocate the speedy acquisition of land, but there is not much use in that if we do not also have a speedy division of land. I do not know whether it is staff shortage is the cause or not, but for the life of me I cannot understand why an estate, taken over in 1947 or early in 1948, is still undivided. I cannot understand why a part scheme was prepared, houses erected and holdings pointed out to migrants, and yet the migrants have not been brought there.

Mr. Blowick

Since when?

Mr. Beegan

I would say since 1947 or 1948. I could mention the estates but I dislike doing that.

Mr. Blowick

Will the Deputy give me the particulars privately?

Mr. Beegan

I certainly will with the greatest pleasure.

Mr. Blowick

Thank you.

Mr. Beegan

What I have said has been happening. I know another estate which is quite close to my home. It was taken over, I think, in the end of 1948. The negotiations were on in the latter part of 1947, but it was taken over in 1948 or 1949, and it has been let in conacre grazing and tillage since then. Some of that estate when it was taken over was in a pretty bad way because it had been let for conacre tillage during the emergency and was very neglected. I understand that last year the Land Commission made it a condition on those who took it for conacre tillage that they should put in a certain amount of fertiliser and also sow it with grass seeds.

I do not think that such a length of time should be allowed to elapse before proceeding with the division of that estate. I believe there is sufficient Land Commission staff in the County Galway to deal with it and have something done by way of having a scheme prepared. I put a question to the Minister some few weeks ago in respect of the estate that I am now speaking about. The Minister's reply was—I know, of course, very well that this is the information he got from the Department—that the staff were on more important work than in dealing with this estate. The fact is that the Land Commission took over that estate of 373 statute acres in the year 1948-49, and that they have continued to let it in conacre grazing and tillage. If that estate had been taken over in an area where there was acute congestion, and the Land Commission found that they had some difficulty in preparing a scheme for it and then had to let it in conacre for grazing, meadow, or tillage, I could very well understand that, but in this case the land is not in the centre of an area where there is real acute congestion. There could not be acute congestion there because of all the land that was divided previously in that particular area.

There is another feature of this question which was mentioned by Deputy Blaney. It was that, when land is being let by the Land Commission, very often it is not the smallholders even in the locality who get it. They perhaps get a preference, but they are outbid by the very large landholders. I know people who have taken conacre tillage on a particular estate that I have in mind even though they have plenty of land to till on their own holdings. I think that is a matter that should be taken into consideration by those in charge. I move to report progress.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.