Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Friday, 2 Nov 1928

Vol. 26 No. 12

ADJOURNMENT DEBATE. - CONGESTION IN COUNTY MAYO.

I gave notice that I would raise the matter of the congestion that exists in the Ballinrobe district. My reason for raising this matter now is due to the answer that I received yesterday from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Lands and Fisheries. I refer to his reply to Question No. 11 on the Orders of the Day yesterday. In the course of his reply, the Parliamentary Secretary stated that no congestion existed in the townlands of Kilkeeran, Cloonliffen and Cloneagh. I have here a list of the small holdings in one of the townlands in that area, that is, in Cloonliffen, and I will read it for the House. The first is the holding of Tom Cusack, who has land in fifteen divisions. Before I go any further, I wish to say that the highest rental does not go beyond £5, and the total amount of land in the possession of any individual is small. Here are the other holdings: Tom Madden, who has his land in 14 divisions; W. Killeen, 17 divisions; Michael Madden, 12 divisions; Pat Hession, 16 divisions; John Walsh, 22 divisions; B. Madden, 11 divisions; B. Killeen, 14 divisions; Kate Hogan, 9 divisions, and B. Feerick, 17 divisions.

I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to tell us why he stated that no congestion exists in that area. Why did he say that the tenants have refused to accept land, or why did he make the implication that they refused all reasonable efforts made by the Land Commission in the striping of this land? The Parliamentary Secretary did not state for what reason the tenants refused to sign the purchase agreements, but he practically stated, in the course of his reply, that nothing would be done for those tenants, and that their cases would not get any attention. Would it be true to say that one of the tenants was refused any addition of land because it was thought that a relative of his would leave him another small farm? This happened about ten years ago, and the relative from whom he was supposed to get the farm has not yet died. The case in this particular area is very typical of the state of affairs on a lot of estates throughout the County Mayo. The Land Commission have had several estates on their hands for years, and nothing has been done with them. The tenants have not had their lands vested, the congested problem has not been dealt with, and no attempt is being made to meet the needs of the people. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to answer straightforwardly why these lands have not been dealt with. Why has an exception been made in this particular district, while most of the portions of the Knox Estate in other districts have been, or are being, dealt with? Is the statement I have made about the W. Killeen case true? The statement I have made about that case was that he was refused land on the grounds that the relative from whom he is supposed to get another holding is still alive. This reason was given ten years ago. I am happy to say that there is no immediate reason to think that this man will not live for another ten years. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to tell us why he should say that no congestion exists in that area when I have read out such a list of appalling conditions.

Why did you not read out the valuations of the other townlands?

There are two or three cases in the other townlands on which I expect the Parliamentary Secretary will concentrate in his reply, while he will ignore the position of the majority of the tenants who have small valuations. He will concentrate on the large holders in the other townlands. That is why I drew attention in particular to those cases. He should investigate the position of affairs in that townland, and even in the neighbouring townlands, and he should state definitely the reason why a settlement of the land question in that particular area has been held back.

I stated in my reply yesterday to Deputy Walsh that there was no acute congestion on this estate. As a matter of fact, there is not any acute congestion on this estate. This particular portion of the Knox Estate originally embraced some 7,000 acres, approximately. All that land has been dealt with except the portion in the three townlands referred to in the question. The townland of Cloonliffen was striped about eight years ago, and the tenants have been approached on at least three occasions to accept the striping arrangement prepared by the Land Commission and sign agreements, but they have refused to do so.

They probably had a good reason.

There was no reason whatsoever. They admitted to the inspector that the striping arrangements were satisfactory, but they did not want to part with their present holdings. In the course of a supplementary question yesterday, Deputy Walsh said that a great deal of this land is in rundale lettings, and in order to give the people compact holdings it was the intention of the Land Commission to prepare a scheme to do away with the rundale lettings. The tenants on three occasions have refused to accept the offer of the Land Commission, and until they are agreeable nothing further is going to be done for them.

At present the land is let in grazing to smaller tenants in this particular townland and actually at the present time even the valuation of the smallest tenant in the townland exceeds £11. The tenants in the other townlands to which the Deputy referred in his question yesterday have valuations ranging approximately from £50 to £5 15s.

How many acres?

Two men in the townland of Kilkeeran have valuations of over £40, three over £20, three over the £10 standard, and all the others have valuations exceeding £5. The land in this area is also let in grazing and I think it has been so let for the last six years. These people have no grievance. Similarly in this instance the tenants have refused to agree to a scheme prepared by the Land Commission and until they do agree no further action will be taken. The very same thing applies to the townland of Cloneagh. A similar striped scheme was submitted and the tenants refused to agree to it. It was submitted on three different occasions. On the first occasion the tenants suggested certain alterations and amendments. These were finally accepted by the Land Commission and when the scheme was again submitted to the tenants on two occasions they refused to have anything to do with it. In addition to a scheme of rearrangement and subdivision the Land Commission offered very great inducement to a number of the smaller tenants in this townland to migrate to a neighbouring estate. One man with a valuation of less than £11 in the townland of Kilkeeran was offered a holding with a valuation of £25 in the vicinity of the holding that he was asked to relinquish, but he refused to accept. Similar offers were made to other tenants in the neighbouring townland and they also refused to accept. In the circumstances what grievance can these tenants have?

Thirty tenants would scarcely refuse all the offers of the Land Commission if those offers were as good as the Parliamentary Secretary indicates. The average tenant farmer in County Mayo is not a fool, and he knows when he gets a good offer; he knows whether it is good or not. Neither is he unreasonable, in my experience. I am quite convinced that when these men refused the Land Commission offers they did so for very good reasons. If the case of the tenants was put side by side with the case made by the Parliamentary Secretary, I am quite convinced that the tenants would not suffer by comparison.

The same thing applies to many other estates in County Mayo and other counties, too, where the Land Commission put forward schemes of rearrangement. The tenants want to hold on to their present rundale lettings and they are not prepared to accept rearrangement schemes which would give them compact holdings. We insist on the tenants accepting our schemes. The Deputy and other Deputies also have pestered us over and over again to endeavour to get tenants to accept such schemes or go ahead with our rearrangement schemes. The whole point is that the tenants want to hold on to the present rundale lettings. We are not going to allow them to do that. Until they accept our schemes that were submitted years ago, there is going to be no alteration in the present condition of affairs. If the Deputy has any influence with the tenants he should approach them collectively or individually, and advise them to accept the Land Commission scheme. It is the only way out of the difficulty.

What is the rent of the holding at present as compared with the valuation? What is the rent that the Land Commission intend to put on the compact holding as compared with the valuation?

The present rentals are small, but the rentals on the other holding will be considerably larger, because the tenants are getting additional land.

The Parliamentary Secretary has not answered my question with regard to Killeen.

I do not know about him, but judging by his valuation he is a man who is not entitled to land. His valuation is up to the economic standard.

What is his valuation?

One of our inspectors suggested that perhaps he might get an additional piece of land. Killeen's valuation is already up to the economic standard, and ordinarily his is not one of the cases that would be dealt with, particularly in a poor congested county like Mayo.

The Dáil adjourned at 2.15 p.m. until Wednesday, 7th November.

Barr
Roinn