Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 15 May 1929

Vol. 29 No. 16

Private Business. - Scariff Workhouse.

Mr. P. Hogan (Clare)

I move:—

"That the Dáil does not approve of the proposed lease or licence in respect of portion of the workhouse premises, Scariff, Co. Clare, as set out in the Statement laid before the Dáil, pursuant to Section 2 of the State Lands Act, 1924, on October 11th, 1928."

I would bespeak respect for the grey locks of this motion. It is the oldest on the Order Paper, and it has grown grey in the service of the Dáil, so at the outset I would ask the Dáil to have respect for its grey hair. I shall in brief recite the history of the Scariff Workhouse plots. Some time during the Black and Tan struggle, the Scariff Workhouse was burned as a military act and ceased to be any use as a building, and the plots were naturally supposed to be owned by the Clare County Council. On the 18th July, 1924, at a meeting of the Clare County Council the plots were formally given on an application from the Secretary of the Scariff Branch of the Irish Transport and General Workers' Union to eight or nine people to be used for the raising of vegetables and potatoes, etc. Every year since these people have paid a certain amount to the Clare County Council for the use of these plots. They have tilled the plots and got potatoes and vegetables out of them to some extent, and these vegetables have been the means of tiding those people over a period of hardship and unemployment on several occasions. That is very important for the people, and the Clare County Council took that into consideration, and there was no division of opinion on the matter in the Clare County Council. The premier body in the county decided that it was so important that they had no reluctance whatever in handing these plots over to the plotholders, and since August, 1924, they have been in the possession of these plot-holders.

When the State Lands Act was passed this land became vested in the State, and a certain amount of the land—a small portion, one of the plots—was required for certain use other than by the plot-holders. I formally objected by putting down this motion asking the Dáil to disagree, but inasmuch as I was not then convinced that it was the policy of the Department of Local Government to bite continuously into these plots and cause by what you might call a policy of attrition, the sacrifice of these plots, I do not press the motion.

An Ceann Comhairle

resumed the Chair.

Mr. Hogan

A co-operative creamery has been installed in the building and facilities have been afforded the extension here and there of that undertaking. I want to be quite definite at this stage in saying that I am myself whole-heartedly in favour of the co-operative creamery, and I can assure the Minister that the people interested in that project will acquit me of any desire to impede the progress of the creamery. Now we find there is a fresh bite made into these plots. I hold it is not necessary for the creamery or for anybody to bite into these plots to any extent. One would want to know the district to understand the position. There is sufficient ground for the creamery without going into the plots. That is plain to anyone who knows the district. What I am anxious the Minister would tell us is where is this work of attrition to cease? When these men acquired these plots from the Clare County Council they were of opinion that they were acquiring certain rights. They are now five years in occupation of these plots. I do not think the Minister will be able to say that they have not used them well. I have gone through these plots on occasions and I have seen that they have been very carefully cultivated. The holders have tilled the land and have spent money in the purchase of manures and fertilisers and, to some extent, they have made the land arable and turned it into small gardens. There may be no reason for supposing that this continuous biting in is going to be the policy of the Ministry, but does the Minister contend that a lawn tennis court and a residence for a professional gentleman are of more importance than the continuance of these plots for the production of food for several families in the Scariff district? If it is the Minister's system of economic philosophy that a lawn tennis court and a big house for a professional gentleman are of more importance than vegetables and potatoes for several families in the town of Scariff, then I am afraid I shall not agree with him, and I shall ask the House to disagree with that proposition The plotholders now apply that they may be dealt with under the State Lands Act. Would the Minister tell us why he should not give them facilities to hold this land under the State Lands Act? Anyhow, I hope the Minister will tell us what he proposes to do. Does he consider those people have no rights or that this system should continue? The plot-holders have been there for four years expending time and labour and money on those plots, and the sole purpose of this motion is to find out what the Minister proposes to do.

The main purpose of this motion is to find out what he proposes to do, whether he proposes to turn them down altogether or proposes to allow, as he said, lawn tennis courts or residences of professional gentlemen to grow up there. I hope he will now tell us what exactly is his position in the matter.

General Mulcahy

I am glad to realise that the Deputy's purpose in putting down the motion was to enquire as to the policy in the future and not to oppose, as the motion in fact suggests, the lease which is being granted to the Scariff Co-operative Society. The matter perhaps might have been brought up in a different way, because what the motion proposes is that the Dáil disagrees with the proposal that is now in operation to give portion of the old Scariff workhouse grounds on a lease to the Scariff Co-operative Creamery Society for the purposes of their creamery. I take it that the Deputy withdraws from the position of opposing that and that this is simply an inquiry as to what is the attitude of the Department to the disposal of such lands as remain unallotted now in Scariff. The Deputy has correctly pointed out that in August 1924, certain persons were given, by the Co. Council, under the Short Lettings Order that was issued in March, 1924, lettings for plots in the grounds of the Scariff workhouse. Subsequently the Land Act of 1924 provided that these lettings could not be arranged except under the Act and by permission of the Minister. The position passed on till January, 1927, when an inquiry was held by an inspector sent down by the Ministry to inquire into a certain number of applications that were being made for leases of portion of these lands. Certain people appeared before the inquiry, I think the East Clare Co-operative Society, the Scariff Co-operative Society and certain other private persons. They made application and proposals for certain portions of these lands. It is correct to say that the plotholders, as such, did not appear before the inquiry and did not make any formal claims there. However, the position that developed from the inquiry was that certain lands were leased to the Scariff Co-operative Creamery at a rent of £10 a year under a lease of 99 years and certain other lands were leased to the East Clare Co-operative Society at a similar rent and that certain other lands remain.

The leases that have already been given have impinged upon the plots that were held by some of the plot-holders. Certain proposals are at present before the Department— they are not, perhaps, very pressingly before them—for the disposal of the other lands. The position of the Department is that the remaining portion of the land will be disposed of to the best advantage of the local ratepayers. Every aspect of the matter having been weighed up, the Department would be of necessity both disposed and to a certain extent compelled to lease these lands that belong to the ratepayers of Clare on the best possible terms. As far as a war of attrition on the plotholders is concerned, I will ask Deputies to accept it that in Scariff the remaining grounds that are there should be disposed to the best possible financial advantage of the ratepayers as a whole. That will be the policy of the Department. Naturally each application for a lease must be considered on its merits, and would have to come before the Oireachtas. Deputy Hogan would rather leave me under the impression, and I am sure leave the House, that in so far as facilities were available for plotholders that they were denied these facilities. The attitude of the Department all along has been to facilitate plotholders as far as possible. The statement has been made that every year the plotholders who are there have paid certain sums. I would remind the Deputy that that is not so, and that there are four persons at present in possession of plots there who have not paid rents to the Co. Council for three years.

Mr. Hogan

What is the date of that?

General Mulcahy

The date of this letter is 13th February, 1929. It is from the Acting-Secretary of the Co. Council.

Mr. Hogan

I think it should be read.

General Mulcahy

At any rate, on 27th November a letter was addressed to the Deputy informing him that the proposals before the House did interfere with some of the plot-holders. The letter from the Department to the Deputy stated: "The Minister is prepared to consider whether the lands should be let to these men for cultivation in the coming season only. The Minister, however, observes that although the lands have been there and let for several seasons, three have not paid the rent in 1926-27, and of the others four have not paid in 1927-28. It would be a condition of any lettings now made that all arrears of rent should be paid up; it would also be necessary to satisfy the Department as to the rent and other terms of letting." That was November, 1928.

The Secretary of the Co. Council reports in February that the position is, as I say, that four men have not paid rent for three years, two for two years and another has not paid rent for one. So that the persons who are occupying those plots have not co-operated in any way with the Department or helped the Department to overcome such difficulties as have existed in allowing them to have their plots. The attitude of the Department has been that such lands as are available for plots may be used as plots, but can only be used as plots within the strict terms of the Land Act, 1924, and with the proviso that leases will only be granted from year to year, so that more advantageous lettings of any of these lands in the interests of the ratepayers in general will not be prejudiced. I hope that we are clear that the House does not take up the attitude that leases of any of the lands here shall not be granted to the Creamery Companies if they want these lands for business purposes and at a fairly substantial rent, on satisfying the Department and the Minister for Finance. That is all that is involved in the motion. If there is any other point involved in the further letting of the other parts of those lands it will, I take it, have to arise on another motion. I would like it to be understood that the policy of the Department is quite clear and considered in the matter, and in so far as plot-holders can be accommodated the Department is prepared to accommodate them, but any lettings for the current year will be on the understanding that the people getting these lettings will be made pay whatever arrears of rent they owe and might be expected to pay for the current year.

Mr. S. T. O'Kelly

I have considerable sympathy with what the Minister has said, if the statements he has made are absolutely accurate and if he has been properly informed by his Department. But with the principle that he lays down when he says that State lands, and these lands in particular, will be let, if not sold, on the most advantageous terms irrespective of other considerations, I would not be inclined to agree. If there are people like these plotholders who have been in possession, some of them for a considerable time, provided, of course, they pay whatever rents or fees they have agreed to, I do not think it would be fair to give the land to somebody because he is more wealthy and offers a rent or a price that these poor people would not be able to compete against. I do not think I would be prepared to support the Minister in going that far, or in giving him an absolutely free hand to let these lands, or any of the lands, irrespective of considerations that ought to be taken into account, where there are poor men who can make good use of the land, who have made good use of it, and have met their obligations. If the Minister insists on carrying out his principle that on all occasions the State is to be free to accept the highest bid without taking into account other considerations, I certainly would not agree.

General Mulcahy

The only thing I insist on at the moment is that the House do not disagree with the proposal that the Scariff Co-operative Creamery Society shall get the piece of land that has been leased to them at a rent of £10.

Mr. Hogan

I am not at all satisfied with what the Minister has said, and I am not at all satisfied that he is correctly informed. I have made inquiries relative to the position of these plotholders and as to their payments to the County Council, and I am informed later than 13th February, 1929, that all the payments are cleared.

General Mulcahy

What date?

Mr. Hogan

I cannot give the exact date. I was told by a responsible official of the Clare County Council that all the payments were made.

General Mulcahy

The important thing is the date.

Mr. Hogan

I quite understand. I hope the Minister will accept my statement as being substantially correct. I am not trying to score a point off the Minister.

General Mulcahy

May I clear the matter up? I have a letter here dated 13th February, 1929, from the Secretary of the County Council in which he explicitly states the facts. A letter was written to him on 12th February, 1929, inquiring whether the persons who had these plots had paid the arrears of rent. I have a reply dated 6th March, stating that some of the plotholders are in arrears, and that they have promised to pay as soon as they are able. I have had no further communication since.

Mr. Hogan

I am not to be taken as suggesting that the Minister is not telling us what he has information about, but I think the Minister is incorrectly informed. I have been informed by an official of the Clare County Council that the rents due on these plots are paid up to date, and that the tenants are prepared to continue paying. I think that disposes of that point. The Minister asked the House to reject my proposal disagreeing with the granting of land to the Co-operative Society at Scariff. It will be noted, although there are two proposals from the Co-operative Society in Scariff for the acquisition of some of these plots, that notwithstanding the fact that application has been made by these plotholders to get facilities under the State Lands Act, we find no proposal from the Minister with reference to these. He tells us now that the plots will be let to the greatest advantage of the ratepayers. Does the Minister suggest that the Clare County Council is not the best authority as to what would be the greatest advantage to the ratepayers in that district? Does he suggest that the Clare County Council in 1924 did not appreciate the necessity for safeguarding the interests of the ratepayers, and does he suggest now that his Department is in a better position to see what is to the advantage of the ratepayers than that body? I put it to him that it ought not to be a question of the highest rent that could be got for these plots. Does he suggest that somebody can come in and buy these plots over the heads of the unfortunate people, for whom the vegetables they grow on them are an absolute necessity, and for portions of the year are the only margin between them and starvation during periods of unemployment and hardship? We really are not objecting to the acquisition of certain of these plots, but to the fact that the Minister has given an indication that he is prepared to acquire, in part or in whole, these plots for some other purpose than what they were intended for, and that it is portion of his economic philosophy that these plots should be given to the highest bidder. If a man wants a lawn tennis court, is he going to get these plots for such a purpose if he is prepared to pay more for the land than a man in a side street in Scariff is able to pay for his cabbage plot, or if a man wants a site for a nine or ten-roomed house is he prepared to give it to him? I suggest that that is the policy of the Minister, and I will ask the House to vote against any action of the kind.

Mr. MacEntee

Do we understand from Deputy Hogan that some portion of these plots has been taken from the former holders to provide a tennis court?

Mr. Hogan

I do not want to mislead any Deputy. I have not said that. I have said that portions of these plots on two different occasions have been acquired by the Scariff Co-operative Creamery quite unnecessarily. There are other portions that are not used as plots at all, and that could be acquired by the Scariff Co-operative Creamery. I do suggest that it is in the realms of possibility that a tennis court might spring up, or a nine or ten-roomed house might spring up to the total destruction of cabbage or potato plots.

An Ceann Comhairle

I take it that the word "proposed" should be deleted from the Deputy's motion.

The Dáil agreed.

Question, as amended, put:

"That the Dáil does not approve of the lease or licence in respect of portion of the workhouse premises, Scariff, Co. Clare, as set out in the Statement laid before the Dáil, pursuant to Section 2 of the State Lands Act, 1924, on October 11th, 1928."

The Dáil divided: Tá, 58; Níl, 61:

Tá

• Allen, Denis.
• Anthony, Richard.
• Blaney, Neal.
• Boland, Gerald.
• Boland, Patrick.
• Bourke, Daniel.
• Brady, Seán.
• Briscoe, Robert.
• Buckley, Daniel.
• Carney, Frank.
• Carty, Frank.
• Cassidy, Archie J.
• Clancy, Patrick.
• Clery, Michael.
• Colbert, James.
• Cooney, Eamon.
• Corkery, Dan.
• Corry, Martin John.
• Crowley, Fred. Hugh.
• Crowley, Tadhg.
• Davin, William.
• Derrig, Thomas.
• Doyle, Edward.
• Everett, James.
• Fahy, Frank.
• Flinn, Hugo.
• French, Seán.
• Corry, Patrick J.
• Goulding, John.
• Hayes, Seán.
• Hogan, Patrick (Clare).
• Houlihan, Patrick.
• Jordan, Stephen.
• Kennedy, Michael Joseph.
• Kent, William R.
• Kerlin, Frank.
• Killilea, Mark.
• Kilroy, Michael.
• Lemass, Seán F.
• Little, Patrick John.
• Maguire. Ben.
• McEllistrim, Thomas.
• MacEntee, Seán.
• Moore, Séamus.
• Morrissey, Daniel.
• Murphy, Timothy Joseph.
• O'Dowd, Patrick Joseph.
• O'Kelly, Seán T.
• O'Reilly, Matthew.
• O'Reilly, Thomas.
• Powell, Thomas P.
• Ruttledge, Patrick J.
• Ryan, James.
• Sexton, Martin.
• Smith, Patrick.
• Tubridy, John.
• Walsh, Richard.
• Ward, Francis C.

Níl

• Alton, Ernest Henry.
• Beckett, James Walter.
• Bennett, George Cecil.
• Blythe, Ernest.
• Brennan, Michael.
• Brodrick, Seán.
• Byrne, John Joseph.
• Cole, John James.
• Collins-O'Driscoll, Mrs. Margt.
• Conlon, Martin.
• Connolly, Michael P.
• Cosgrave, William T.
• Craig, Sir James.
• Crowley, James.
• Daly, John.
• Davis, Michael.
• De Loughrey, Peter.
• Lynch, Finian.
• Mathews, Arthur Patrick.
• McDonogh, Martin.
• McFadden, Michael Og.
• McGilligan, Patrick.
• Mongan, Joseph W.
• Mulcahy, Richard.
• Murphy, James E.
• Myles, James Sproule.
• Nally, Martin Michael.
• Nolan, John Thomas.
• O'Connor, Bartholomew.
• O'Donovan, Timothy Joseph.
• O'Hanlon, John F.
• Doherty, Eugene.
• Dolan, James N.
• Doyle, Peadar Seán.
• Duggan, Edmund John.
• Dwyer, James.
• Egan, Barry M.
• Fitzgerald, Desmond.
• Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
• Gorey, Denis J.
• Haslett, Alexander.
• Heffernan, Michael R.
• Hennigan, John.
• Henry, Mark.
• Holohan, Richard.
• Jordan, Michael.
• Kelly, Patrick Michael.
• Law, Hugh Alexander.
• O'Higgins, Thomas.
• O'Leary, Daniel.
• O'Mahony, Dermot Gun.
• O'Sullivan, Gearoid.
• O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
• Rice, Vincent.
• Roddy, Martin.
• Shaw, Patrick W.
• Sheehy, Timothy (West Cork).
• Thrift, William Edward.
• Tierney, Michael.
• Wolfe, George.
• Wolfe, Jasper Travers.

Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Cassidy and T. Murphy.

Question declared lost.

Níl: Deputies Duggan and P.S. Doyle.