I said so at the time, and that is on record. However, I welcomed it personally, because I realised that, compared with his predecessors, the Minister had a full understanding of the viewpoint of the rural community and certainly, from what I could find out, a full realisation of the problems confronting the people living in the rural parts of the country. I had high hopes that, with that knowledge, experience and background, the Minister would make greater progress than his predecessors. I feel bound to admit that, if he has not made the progress which he and others desired, in the direction of dividing the lands of the country, it is properly attributable to emergency conditions.
The Minister, in introducing the Estimate, gave the impression that he had nothing different to say on this occasion from what he had said in the previous year. That is not so. The Minister made some very amazing admissions which were never made and would not have been made by any of his predecessors. Dealing with the division of land, he said:—
"We have learned by sad experience that it is worse than useless to set men up on new holdings without enough stock, implements, experience and capital to make the best use of the land."
I have suggested over a number of years, on every occasion on which I spoke on the Land Commission Estimates, that it was the duty of the Government in a country like this which desired to give portions of estates which were being divided to suitable landless men and smallholders to see that a reasonable amount of money was provided, free of interest or at a nominal rate of interest, to deserving landless men and smallholders who had not the capital to enable them to work the land they were thought fit to be given.
No previous Minister has ever made that admission. Now that the Minister has made it for the first time in this House, I hope he will tell us, when replying, how he proposes to solve that problem in the future. I presume it is the desire of the Minister and of the Government, in the future as in the past, to provide deserving, experienced agricultural labourers—landless men and smallholders—with portions of estates whenever and wherever they are divided, and that, as a result of their experience in the past, they will take steps to provide these applicants with the necessary capital to work the land. I say, again, in view of what the Minister has said here, that, unless the Government do what was done in the past, the great majority of agricultural labourers if they are put into land without capital to enable them to buy stock or machinery cannot make good, even though they get an economic holding as a result of land division. In some other countries where this problem had to be faced a limited amount of money —say, £200 or £300 in the currency of those countries—was given to landless men to enable them to make good. If the majority of landless men and smallholders have, "as a result of the sad experience of the Land Commission failed to make good," it is because they had not the money to enable them to do so. They had the experience and everything else required. The fact that they had not the money was the cause of their failure. I know some of those men myself. They were workers on estates that were divided. As was the custom, they were given a holding on the estate when it was divided. Some of those men, to my knowledge, were first-class ploughmen. In fact, in some cases they were managing the estates before they were taken over. They failed simply because they had not capital to enable them to make a good start and to face the future. I hope the Minister will have something positive to say on that when replying, and that he will take the House into his confidence and tell us what it is proposed to do in the future for that type of applicant.
The Minister, when introducing the Vote, said that without adequate staff and without adequate material it was impossible for the Land Commission to get on with land division. I was surprised to hear the Minister complain about a shortage of staff, because later in his short speech he said that a considerable section of the staff which had gone on loan to other Departments, particularly to the Department of Agriculture, had returned and were engaged in clearing off arrears of work in particular sections of the Land Commission. I take it that he was there referring mostly to outside staff, some of the members of which, I know, were transferred to the Department of Agriculture. They may still be engaged—I am not sure—in connection with the compulsory tillage operations. I do not think it is a question of staff in the Land Commission. I think it is one of reorganisation. Deputy Blowick, when speaking, referred to his failure to receive replies to some letters which he sent to the Land Commission 15 months ago. In other cases he said that he got no reply to communications that he handed in personally. That has been the experience of every Deputy over a long period of years. An explanation would seem to be needed as to why a particular Department of State cannot send a reply to communications from Deputies and the public generally within a reasonable period of time, whereas the same complaint cannot be levelled against any other Department of State so far as I know. I am certain, from my knowledge of a limited number of the senior officials of the Land Commission, that they are as efficient and competent as the senior officials in any other Department of State.
I respectfully make the suggestion to the Minister and his principal officials that there is a case for the reorganisation of the Land Commission, even if it be only for the purpose of seeing that letters sent in by Deputies and members of the public generally are attended to within the same reasonable period of time as letters sent in to other State Departments. No good reason can be given to the House, I think, as to why letters sent in to a State Department are not answered. I know, of course, that you will get an acknowledgment on a brown form if you are a member of the Dáil, but I still think that Deputy Blowick's statement was not an exaggeration. He said that in one case he did not get a reply to a letter that he sent in 15 months ago. There is a very big staff employed in the Land Commission. I am sure that, if the Minister desires it, he can give a direction for a reorganisation of the Department so that matters of that kind can be put right for the future.
There are a few matters that I desire to raise on the Estimate. It is not my intention to repeat anything that I said 12 months ago. I want to deal principally with the question of migrants and the importing into areas, where a small acreage of land has been divided, of persons from outside those areas, and, in some cases, of persons from outside the county concerned. I am not opposed to the migration policy as a policy, provided it is clearly understood that, in the division of land, first preference is given to those who live in the neighbourhood of that land, and particularly to the landless men and smallholders who had been using it before it was decided to divide it—men who had been taking it in conacre for tillage or grazing purposes. It was always understood—I do not know whether the Minister has changed that policy or not—that when land was being divided the persons entitled to portions of it would be, first of all, the workers who would lose their employment as a result of the change of ownership from the landlord to the Land Commission; secondly, smallholders in the area, and, thirdly, evicted tenants, if there were any, or their representatives who would be entitled to submit claims. Generally speaking, the policy was that smallholders, living within a fixed radius of the estate, landless men, and experienced agricultural labourers would be entitled to get a portion of that land. So far that was the policy of the two Governments that we have had in this State, and I am not sure whether there has been any change in it.
I think it is very unfair, and I am sure the Minister would say the same if anything of the same kind happened in his own constituency, to bring large numbers of people from outside an area and give them land as I have seen happening in a recent case. The land was handed over to migrants, while a large number of uneconomic holders in the areas were left completely out in the cold. Will it not be admitted by the Minister that cottage tenants, or holders of land of a few pounds' valuation who take land on the 11 months' system and work it in conacre for tillage or grazing, are well qualified by their proved experience to apply for and secure a portion of such land whenever it is being divided, as against outsiders who have no such experience? Recently, in connection with a recent case I, with three other members of my constituency, endeavoured to interview the Minister. I understood that he expressed his willingness to meet us, but at the time Deputy Flanagan was ill, and then Deputy O'Higgins got ill and the Minister himself was ill. When, however, the four of us were available I understood that the Minister stated he would not meet the deputation. That, however, is a matter for the Minister himself. But, in or or about the same time, the Minister, according to a Press cutting which I have here, received a Fianna Fáil member of the county council from the same county, accompanied by a deputation, and gave them details in connection with the division of land in that county. He even gave the date upon which this estate, if one can call it an estate, was to be divided—that is according to the Press report which was given by this Fianna Fáil councillor and his friends. If the Minister has any doubt about that I can pass this Press cutting to him. The report states that the Minister received the deputation and indicated the date upon which the scheme of division would be put into operation. That, I suppose, is one of the advantages which Fianna Fáil spokesmen through the country enjoy as against Opposition Deputies in this House, and it is one that was quoted locally. They can come to the Minister and see him any time they like. That is what some of them boast and there is proof of that and it is not the first case I can prove in that respect. That, of course, is given to the local papers as an indication that certain local spokesmen of Fianna Fáil have certain influence with the Ministry and it was published in the last couple of weeks in this particular case in a local paper, presumably with an eye to votes at the coming local elections. If the Minister thinks that is good policy, of course, that is his own business and he has the necessary support behind him in the House to justify him in continuing that kind of policy and in giving a decided preference to local spokesmen of the Government Party as against, if you like, even Deputies of his own Party.
However, in this particular case anyway, I only want to summarise the results of the land division scheme and to ask the Minister to justify the line of policy which has been adopted in this case and which, I understand, is about to be followed in other cases in my constituency. Here is a big acreage of land which was divided quite recently. Five employees on the estate got a farm each. Quite right. There is no objection to that locally. Next in turn were four uneconomic holders, who were given holdings of 12 acres each. May I have an admission from the Minister that in this particular case—the Waller estate, Moystown, Belmont, County Offaly—12 acres, even in that part of the country, is not on economic holding? When one comes to deal with the outsiders who were brought in from an adjoining county, we find that the outsiders got 320 acres amongst them. The migrants were given holdings of 30 acres each whereas the local uneconomic holders were given only 12 acres each. I would like the Minister to justify the kind of treatment that has been given to the local uneconomic holders as against the outsiders. I am reliably informed that some of the people who were brought in objected to signing for such a large acreage. They said they had not the capital and did not want such a large acreage of land. There are numbers of witnesses available to prove that. Perhaps time will tell and perhaps they will fail for the same reason as other migrants failed who were brought into the same county during the past few years.
In this particular case also I desire to draw attention to the fact that before the land was acquired and divided there were 23 persons living in the locality taking land under the conacre system and using it for tillage and grazing purposes. Twelve of the 23 were uneconomic holders with a valuation under the figure that is regarded in that area as uneconomic. I do not know what the valuation figure in that area is from the point of view of an uneconomic holding. The figure changes from time to time and I understand that in the view of some of the Land Commission officials it varies in the different districts, even in the same county or constituency. There were 12 uneconomic holders who were completely ignored and given no portion of land, although they had taken the land under the conacre system during the previous few years and had worked it for the purpose of maintaining themselves and their families. Eleven landless men, some of them Old I.R.A. men, who also took land under the conacre system, were completely ignored in the division scheme. I want to protest, as I have done in other cases— but this is a very bad case, in my opinion—against the bringing into this area of a number of people from another county and giving them holdings, which some of them say they did not want, from the point of view of acreage, and ignoring completely these 23 smallholders and landless men. I am protesting against it here because I am assured that the same policy is going to be followed in other land division schemes that are going to be put into operation in the course of the next year or two, in the same constituency at any rate. Of course, if the Minister supports the policy, he is entitled to do so. I cannot prevent him from doing it. I am not opposed to the policy of bringing in people from outside wherever there is a large acreage of land to be divided and where it is possible to satisfy the local genuine applicants in the division of that land. I have seen people brought in from outside where there were 1,500 acres of land to be divided. All the local deserving applicants were satisfied in that particular case and there was no objection by the local people to bringing in six or seven people from other areas, once the deserving local applicants were satisfied.
I know of another estate which has been taken over by the Land Commission in the past couple of years, but which has not yet been divided, where it is stated locally by spokesmen who, apparently, know more about Government policy than I do, that outsiders are going to be brought into this area also. It is the Kenny Estate, Rossdarragh, County Leix. It has been suggested to me that the reason why it is intended to bring in outsiders in this case is that they cannot find enough suitable applicants locally for all the land that is available there. I challenge the accuracy of that statement, if any such statement has been reported to the Land Commission or to the Minister in connection with that estate. I am speaking in that particular case on behalf of all sections of the community there. If the Minister would consult his own political supporters in that area, I think he will find that that statement, if it has been made to the Land Commission officials or by Land Commission officials, would be challenged. The land on that estate was put up for letting during the last couple of years and it was indicated publicly that if the local people did not pay so much per acre to the auctioneer for this land—he was letting it on behalf of the Land Commission—outsiders would be brought in from another part of the country and that they would take the land. The land was eventually given to the local people. That kind of activity goes to support the rumour that people are going to be brought in whenever this estate is being divided. I should like to hear from the Minister, when he is replying, if it is not too much trouble or, if he has not the information at his disposal, he can let me know later on by some other means, why it is that that particular estate has not been divided before now or why it has had to be let under the 11 months' system for the past couple of years instead of being divided amongst the most deserving applicants.
There is another case on which I should like some information. I do not like mentioning individual cases, but this is an historic case from the point of view of its association with land agitation, going back to the days of the late Michael Davitt. The late Michael Davitt dealt with this case when he was an active and very influential member of the Irish Party. It is the case of the estate called the Alley estate, Knockaroo, County Leix. The agitation for the acquisition of this estate goes back to the old Irish Party days. Subsequent to the passage of the 1923 Act in this House proceedings were instituted for the acquisition of portion of that estate. Different reasons have been given to me at different times during the last 20 years for the failure of the Land Commission, under the Cosgrave régime and under the de Valera régime, to divide this estate. What is the explanation for the failure of the Land Commission over a long period of years to divide this estate? Can any good reason be given even now as to why it was not divided before the war? The landlord concerned is a big land owner and he has asserted that it will never be taken from him as long as he lives. I doubt even if, in this particular case, the compulsory tillage regulations are being at present complied with. At any rate, this small estate is in an area where there is a considerable amount of congestion and nobody can get any good reason why the estate has not been divided long before now. I was assured by the present Minister for the Co-ordination of Defensive Measures, when he was Acting-Minister for Lands, that a certain section put into the 1936 Act was put in for the specific purpose of having this land acquired and divided, making certain that it would be, because in some previous appeals the Land Commission failed to get the Judicial Commissioner to take the point of view of the Land Commission in regard to the acquisition of the estate. If the Minister is not in a position to answer my queries now, perhaps he will be good enough to direct one of his officials to have replies to these queries given within a reasonable time.
The Land Commission have also been engaged in activities, over a long period in some cases, for the acquisition of other large areas of land, but up to the present they have failed in having them divided. In some of these cases the ownership of the lands has been changed since the Land Commission instituted proceedings in the first instance. Probably the Minister knows better than I do that in such cases, whenever the existing owner puts up the land for public auction, there is considerable agitation and pressure brought to bear upon Deputies of all Parties that the Land Commission should intervene and prevent the auction from taking place, or prevent the ownership of the land being changed until such time as the Land Commission are in a position to acquire and divide these lands. I assume that the Land Commission cannot go into cases of this kind, but the Land Commission can, at any rate, hurry up the proceedings, now that they are, as I understand, free from emergency powers restrictions and can intervene again in cases of this kind. I hope the Minister will instruct his officers to review all such cases and, whether or not the ownership of the land has changed in the meantime during the emergency period, use their compulsory powers for hurrying up the acquisition and division of the lands. It is quite true, as somebody stated, that if a great deal more of the land of this country had been divided before the emergency arose you would have less trouble in enforcing the compulsory tillage regulations, as the land would be in the hands of people who would be willing to till it without compulsion of any kind.
I represent a constituency where the compulsory tillage regulations were hardly needed. It is a constituency where the farmers generally, the small farmer and middle-class farmer, tilled the land for a long period of years. That is proved by the way in which the first beet factory set up in this State was supported by the farmers of Carlow, Leix, Offaly and North Tipperary. The acreage required for the first beet factory was freely provided and justified the Government of the day in erecting the first beet factory in Carlow. If you go around my constituency you will find that the cottage tenants were exceptionally good and are still very good in getting hold of conacre for the purpose of increasing beet production. I would ask the Minister and his officials, wherever there is land available for division, to consider more sympathetically than they have up to the present the claims of cottage tenants for five or ten-acre plots. I understand that under the Cottage Purchase Acts of 1936 power is given to the Land Commission to buy out a cottage where the Land Commission officers consider the tenant to be a good and deserving applicant for land. Wherever the commissioners are in a position to take advantage of that, I think it is a development which should be encouraged.
I understand that you, Sir, pointed out that discussion on this Vote would be confined to Land Commission matters and that we are not allowed to deal with other matters coming under the supervision of the Minister, such as forestry. I have tried, so far as possible, not to repeat anything I have said during a previous discussion, with the exception of the troublesome question of bringing in people from outside and giving them land where there is an excess of suitable applicants in the locality where the land is being divided. Unlike other constituencies, the constituency of LeixOffaly, with very few exceptions, has not very many large estates available for division. So far as I know, the majority of the big estates have been acquired and divided since the 1923 Act by the two Governments in succession. I am expressing the opinions of local people—and the same can be said of my Fianna Fáil colleagues— when I say that it is a cause of considerable irritation to local people to see outsiders being dumped on top of them and people who are fit and willing and who have the necessary machinery and capital to work land being ignored, as they were ignored in the one or two cases I have mentioned.