Committee on Finance. - Vote 52—Lands (Resumed). – Dáil Éireann (12th Dáil) – Tuesday, 13 May 1947

Committee on Finance. - Vote 52—Lands (Resumed).

Mr. Commons

When progress was reported on the last day this Estimate was under discussion, I was explaining to the Minister and the Land Commissioners the very poor effort that was made during the past 14 or 15 years to bring about any settlement of the rural slum conditions which have been the cause of so much strife and agitation for such a long time. I do not intend to take up much more of the time of the House on this matter, because I am convinced that it is an utter waste of time to try to cope with the failures of the Department or to expect them to improve in the years before us. The excuses that have been given would convince nobody, yet we still have these old excuses whenever we raise questions here with regard to different farms. If the Minister will take the trouble to look up the debates he will find that I have put down possibly three or four times as many questions as any other Deputy relative to land troubles and worries. I have got the same old answer—that note has been taken of the Deputy's representations and that the matter is being considered by the Land Commission. Whenever I make a personal approach to the Land Commission, or when I submit in writing the grievances of a number of tenants, I get back a little official form setting out: "Tá orm a rá go bhfuarthas do leitir agus go dtabharfaí aire dí". That is what follows my representations to the Land Commission and all the while the people are in need of an enlargement of their holdings.

The Minister tells us it is hard to make progress and that he is doing the best he can in very difficult circumstances. Why does he not ask the House to give him authority to bring in a more progressive system of land acquisition and division, or is he in the position that he does not know how to tackle land acquisition and division? Several Deputies have asked the Minister what is the policy now and in the years to come with reference to land settlement. I am surprised that any Deputy who has followed the trend of events in relation to land troubles should ask such a question. It is very easy to know. The policy is to allow any foreigner or any wealthy outsider to buy any estate that he or she wishes to buy and to protect them, if necessary, with all the force of the law. The same old excuses will still be given to the congested tenants and landless men willing and eager to work the land and who have been looking for land for such a long time.

We can judge the Land Commission by what they did in recent years. Unless they introduce legislation to bring about a change, that is the system that will be followed. Some two years ago Deputies asked the Minister was he aware of the purchase by foreigners of large estates and the sub-division of these estates into 50-acre holdings for private individuals. The Minister then said that any man who was able to purchase a home or a farm for himself was more of an asset to this country than those who had to be assisted by the State. Last year in the debate on the Lands Estimate he told us he was not in favour of this; while he had no objection to anybody buying a home for himself, he regarded anyone who would purchase five, ten or 15 farms as bringing about an economic eviction.

Which of these two policies is the Minister determined to carry out? That is what I want to know, but perhaps it is not necessary for me to ask because the answer is supplied by events that have occurred in my own county in the past seven or eight months, for instance the agitation which smallholders near Ballyhaunis were forced to carry out and a similar agitation in the vicinity of Balla. We all know that anybody who has money will be allowed to buy anything he wishes. The Minister, of course, will tell us that these men can still be dispossessed by the Land Commission and that the land can be acquired for the relief of congestion. I think the Minister does not expect us to believe that when a man buys 200 or 300 acres, even though it is in a congested area, and works that land to the satisfaction of the Land Commission and the Minister for Agriculture, the land will be taken from him. I am certain the Minister will be very slow to make any move to dispossess that man even though he may seek to satisfy him by giving him in exchange a holding in the Midlands where there is plenty of land. It is entirely at the discretion of that man to move out or stay as he wishes.

At the outset of this debate I said that the Minister had very little power in regard to that part of land policy that is most useful and most essential —the acquisition and division of untenanted farms. That function has been transferred to the lay commissioners but those lay commissioners have fallen down on their job. What is the use of having a group of men to go down the country to examine the case of a non-residential farm which has been untenanted for over 15 years, on all sides of which there is congestion—I have known a case of this kind to come before the Land Court in Castlebar—and because the owner of this farm asks his solicitor to inform the commissioners that he would like to spend the last days of his life in residence on his land, the commissioners will decide for the time being that no further move will be made towards the acquisition of his farm? What is the use of expecting that these gentlemen will ever bring about any change in land division when that sort of work is carried on?

The Minister in introducing the Estimate said that his staff of officials had been depleted but that this depletion would soon be made good. Perhaps it may be out of order for me——

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy should not give notice.

Mr. Commons

Well, it is better to have your good wishes, Sir. If the Minister wants to speed up land division he should take these five or six old gentlemen who are holding up progress over there in Merrion Square out into the garden on Leinster Lawn, give them 15 or 20 feet of tape and a small bundle of sticks and let them amuse themselves by playing at land division, now that they have got a bit childish and that their mind is a little bit befuddled. It might satisfy them in the latter years of their lives if they were given a little job like that. Last year when the Minister gave us an assurance that he would prevent people from buying land wanted for the relief of congestion I believed he was telling the truth, but I am convinced now that it was an absolute and deliberate attempt to lead Deputies in this House astray. His attitude was: "The agitation may ease down; give me time and I shall settle the whole business." In fairness, it should be said that the Land Commission have done a fair amount of good. It would be foolish for any Deputy to say that for the 20 years they have been in existence they have done no good whatever. They have done a certain amount of good but they have not touched a fraction of what needs to be done. Along the whole western seaboard the problem of congestion is still acute, the rundale system is still in operation and there is an immense area of land in Mayo which remains to be dealt with. Time after time I have raised questions in this House about small holdings of untenanted land. Every single one of them is a non-residential holding and if they were acquired they would go some way towards relieving the existing congestion.

One thing which the Minister or the Land Commission will never be able to grasp is that in congested areas there is an immense number of small uneconomic holdings which have been for a number of years untenanted and left derelict, simply because the people who formerly owned them were not able to make a livelihood on them. Rather than remain in semi-starvation on these small holdings, the owners decided to rent the land for grazing to their neighbours and go to England. Many of these holdings have been in that position for the past 20 years and every single one of them should be taken over by the Land Commission. There is no use in allowing a purchaser to come into a congested area to buy one of these small patches of land in the hope that at some future date he may be able to get a holding elsewhere from the Land Commission. That is only adding more congestion to the congestion that already exists. The question is are these people to be treated in the same manner as the ranchers who own gigantic farms in the Midlands? The land law as it stands at present fixes the same price for all land whether it be three acres or 300 acres that are being acquired. The Land Commission should be able to devise a system whereby people who have to go because they were not able to make a livelihood on their small farms should be paid the market value of such holdings.

The Minister stands up and says in his reply that it is not possible for the market value to be determined. He is the Minister for Lands and he has under him officials experienced in land acquisition, land division and land valuation. If those officials are not capable of devising a Land Act to satisfy all types of people, both those on the small derelict farm and the big rancher, then they are not competent to carry out their job. Time and time again the question has been asked as to what is an economic holding of land. Deputies who live in those areas into which tenants have been migrated say that the Land Commission holdings are too small. I think, myself, the holdings are too small, but one must always remember that it is not the amount of land which makes the economic holding. It is the husbandman. It is quite possible to see a farmer on 15 or 20 acres in a higher state of prosperity than his neighbour who owns 200 or 300 acres. Whether the holding is to be economic or not depends on the owner. I think that 30 to 40 statute acres of land are sufficient to give a man a fair means of livelihood. It is sometimes said that for the farmer on 20 or 30 acres who brings up an average family of four the chief problem is to place those children in some employment. The farm can only be given to one. One must never lose sight of the fact that the small farmer's son, whatever else he may lack, is one of the best workers it is possible to find. The small farmer's son is very rarely found lacking when it is a question of work either with his brain or by the sweat of his brow. He will keep up with the best; he will catch up and pass out all others who start on an equal footing with him.

Some people have been anxious as to what the attitude of this Party is in regard to free sale. Free sale is a ticklish problem. Even in the Constitution no answer is found to it. Article 45 sub-section (2) says that the ownership and control of the material resources of the community shall be so distributed amongst private individuals and the various classes as best to serve the common good. We understand that land must be provided in order to relieve congestion. That land must be taken from the rancher elements and the people in congested districts must be moved to the Midlands where land is plentiful. Free sale should not be done away with. Free sale cannot be done away with. It is not possible for the Government to step in and abolish free sale but the Government must be careful to ensure that free sale is not used to defeat the aim and the object of the Land Commission in relieving congestion. I think, if the Government set about this problem in an energetic way, it could go a long way towards satisfying even the owners of the larger farms. The Minister may ask where is the money to be found. I think a land loan could be raised. Land is after all the best security. Land never deteriorates in value and its fertility remains for all time. There is an old saying in a rather popular book Gone With The Wind—I am sure the Minister has read it—“land is the only thing that lasts”. That is perfectly true. I think if the Minister set about raising a loan he would bring about in a very short time a complete settlement of the problems which confront him in relation to congested districts on the western seaboard and elsewhere.

Captain Giles

For the time being.

Mr. Commons

The present system is too slow and too cumbersome. The Department is racing and chasing from one place to another, delving into files, and looking up long-buried sections of moribund Acts—Acts that should have been thrown into the fire long ago. The Department is merely thickening the miasma in which it already operates and which has enveloped it over a considerable period of time. I have long since ceased to have any confidence in the Land Commission. I have lived all my life surrounded by congestion. I have seen tenants who have taken things calmly and quietly and who have not agitated or driven cattle, or knocked down fences or broken the law, still in the same penurious position in which they were 35 years ago. I have seen those who have broken the law and who have driven cattle, in open defiance of the law, who are still in the same position. No effort is being made to bring about a remedy.

We all know that land will not settle entirely the problems of the population. It would be foolish to think that if all the land in Ireland were divided every man capable and willing to work a farm could be provided with the necessary amount of land in the short space of four or five years. But, if there were an honest-to-God policy, a certain amount of land could be divided every year. All the land at present in the hands of the Land Commission should be allotted immediately. The Land Commission have been holding land for the last 20 years because there is not sufficient of it to satisfy the needs of the local tenants. Let them migrate one, two or three tenants and thus make sufficient land available for the local tenants. In that way they would be doing something towards a solution of the problem which would be better than lying dormant, as they have been for the last four or five years.

A suggestion was made here which I regard as ludicrous, that the 15 to 20-acre farmer might regard the 60-acre farmer as a rancher. There will be 20-acre farmers, 60-acre farmers, 100-acre farmers and perhaps 200-acre farmers, and every one of them will be a national asset. It is as foolish to believe that farms could be all of equal size as to believe that all salaries could be equal. Nevertheless, with a progressive and honest-to-God effort a great deal could be done to end the problem of the rural slum, about which there is such a lot of discussion. Those who represent city constituencies are loud in their cry for more houses to clear out the city slums. Those who represent the rural community want more land to clear out the rural slums. There is sufficient land available to create a fairly good settlement. If the Minister decides that it is a better policy to allow the Duke of Westminister, the Aga Khan, the B. & I. Shipping Company to buy up as much land as they wish, to graze their racehorses—and he has proved that to be his policy in the past year—if it is his policy, when local people are painting slogans upon the walls warning grabbers to keep out, to send the police and the detectives into houses to tear them asunder and to search, to bring people to barracks for questioning them as to their movements, he should tell us so. Of course, as far as Mayo is concerned, we know the policy. The rest of the country may not know it so well. The Minister should tell those Deputies who are asking him what is his land policy, the exact truth. What I have said has been found to be the truth within the past year.

The Minister will say, as he always says on this Estimate: "I have heard a great deal of noise, an immensity of sound, but I have seen no ray of light." I may have forestalled him. If he is not capable of doing his job he is not fit to be Minister for Lands. If the commissioners of the Land Commission, by the powers they have under the 1933 Act, are stopping the progress of the Minister, it is his duty to demand in this House that they should be removed and replaced by more energetic men who will have a greater interest in land acquisition and division. If he does not do that, he is failing in his duty.

There have been complaints that vesting has been held up, but in connection with complaints of that kind I have received, I must say that the answers I have received from the Minister have been satisfactory on all occasions. In regard to the small amount of land division that has been done and the few houses that are being built I suggest that a better type of house should be provided. The Land Commission No. 3 plan and the Land Commission No. 5 plan are good types of houses, but there is a Land Commission No. 2 plan which is definitely not a good house to have erected on a holding. Now that timber may be made available and now that the Land Commission are demanding an immense amount of money, they should provide a better type of house. That would be an asset to the particular tenant and to everybody else.

There is always a certain amount of criticism as to the selection of allottees. That is a difficult task. If the officials of the Land Commission throughout the country were let alone they would do their very best to select the proper type of allottee and to select a person whose former holding would be most suitable for distribution. It is very easy for those of us who have spent all our lives on the land to see at a glance who will be a good farmer. I would never find fault with the officials whose job it is to select allottees for making mistakes. We have been told that membership of a Fianna Fáil club is the first and most important factor. I have no doubt that it is. Even so, if the particular person's land was suitable for subdivision in the locality I would not be averse to his selection. As I said at the outset—I think I am repeating myself perhaps too often.

An Ceann Comhairle

I am inclined to agree with the Deputy.

Mr. Commons

The policy of the Land Commission gives us no hope for the coming year. In my estimation, the real obstruction to progress by the Land Commission are the lay commissioners who sit and rule and who hold the Minister in the palm of their hand.

Mr. Burke

The first thing I want to refer to to-night is the matter of roads leading to Land Commission holdings. I would like the Minister this year to get the Land Commission to consider the very bad condition of the roads leading to Land Commission holdings in County Dublin. Last harvest and this spring it has been very difficult to bring threshing sets into a number of these holdings. About two years ago I brought this matter to the Minister's notice and some of them were done. The roads are bad and the people, especially in some of the holdings provided in North County Dublin, are finding it very difficult to get their work done.

I am very pleased with the steps taken by the Minister in connection with the re-vesting of holdings in County Dublin. That work has been welcomed by my constituents.

There is a crying need for the division of land in North County Dublin. Strange as it may seem, we have a number of uneconomic holders there. Certain estates in the area have been pointed out to me from time to time by my constituents as possible holdings that could be acquired by the Land Commission. I am not going to go as far as my friend, Deputy Commons——

Mr. Commons

The Deputy could not.

Mr. Burke

——and say that we should take the land from other men.

Mr. Commons

I did not say that.

Mr. Burke

I know, but the Deputy was on the border-line of saying so. Where land is definitely available, where it has been untenanted for some time and where it is not being worked—especially in an agricultural county such as County Dublin—the Land Commission, although it has given up acquiring land, should take this land over. I do not agree at all with the principle of stopping the free sale of land. If I had a holding of land in the morning I think I should have an opportunity of selling it to the highest bidder. I think that is only natural. If there are border-line cases where ordinary discretion can be used such as I have already referred to, the Land Commission can do so judicially without interfering with the liberty of the individual and settle the matter one way or the other. Their action would then be of benefit to the nation and to themselves. The price of land at the moment is very high. I suppose it is mainly responsible for the slowing-up of land division. I will give the Minister the names of a number of holdings in the North County Dublin which can be looked into.

I would ask the Land Commission to take serious notice of the flooding of lands. I am sure it is the responsible authority as the Land Commission owns the land and the people are tenants to the Land Commission. The land is flooded and, as I was written to on a number of occasions, I investigated myself. I made representations in the matter and I have been told that the matter is the concern of some other Department. When one applies to some other Department he will be sent to someone else. I would like more coordination between the Department of Lands and, especially, the Board of Works.

I suppose the Board of Works is the responsible authority for drainage and, that being so, it should see that at least some of this work is done. I have in mind certain holdings of land in County Dublin that have no water nearby. I would be glad if the Land Commission would favourably consider the sinking of pumps in some of these areas. Some of the farmers are at a great disadvantage. Sometimes they have to carry water a mile, sometimes half a mile. I know that in certain areas the Land Commission have definitely put down pumps but there are still holdings in which the Land Commission has not put down pumps.

With reference to the economic holdings and the uneconomic holdings given by the Land Commission, I am sorry to say that patches of land were divided out in County Dublin which were not fully availed of by the people who got them. I say here, although it may be somewhat against me, that I think the Land Commission should reallocate this land. There are many people in County Dublin who would definitely make use of the land. The inspectors from the Land Commission should go around and investigate. I have no compunction in saying that the land should be taken from these people who are not availing of it and given to someone else who will work it for himself and for his family. It should be taken from the man who does nothing at all except to live on it and given to someone else who is worthy of having it.

A great deal has been said about the Land Commission inspectors and the commissioners. My outlook on this matter is that these gentlemen are not in a position to defend themselves in this House. I think they have done a good deal of useful work throughout the country, and even if some of them are getting old, they are getting sense in their old age. I think they have done their jobs conscientiously and very well up to the present.

Mr. Davin

The present Minister is the fifth or sixth—certainly the fifth— Deputy in the Fianna Fáil Party who has occupied the responsible position of Minister for Lands since the Fianna Fáil Government came into office. He is, however, the first Minister who has got up in the House in my hearing and more or less in very understandable language said in effect that he had really no responsibility for the activities of the commissioners who, if this Vote is passed, will have the spending of £1,500,000 at their disposal. I do not know whether the Minister is trying to pull the legs of Deputies when he says he has no real responsibility for the working of the commissioners —in other words, in his own language, that he cannot interfere with the activities of the commissioners in administering the various Land Acts passed by this House and by the British Parliament, previous to the coming into operation of this House. I know that the Minister has a very good knowledge of the position in rural Ireland, more so than any of his other colleagues who have occupied this very important post, and understands the background of the land agitation and the reason why this agitation is being carried on and will be carried on in every constituency so long, as in the opinion of the local people, there is untenanted land available for acquisition and division. The Minister in reply to a number of questions put down in the usual way in this House during the last 12 months has led it to be understood that, so far as land acquisition in the Midlands is concerned, such activities have been entirely suspended. I would like the Minister to tell the House whether the same position still exists and how long that position is likely to exist so far as Laoighise, Offaly and the midland counties are concerned.

It is true, I understand, that the land acquisition and division activities of the Land Commission are still being carried on in the Gaeltacht counties. But I cannot understand why the same activities are not being carried on in the midland counties where there is still a large acreage of untenanted land available for acquisition and division. Deputy Commons said, and I think correctly, that the principal purpose for the creation of the Land Commission and its continuance was the relief of congestion. If that is the policy for which the Land Commission still exists, some very sound reasons must be given as to why that activity has been suspended for some time. I would be satisfied to hear from the Minister when it is likely to restart.

On the Estimate for this Department last year I referred to the fact that Land Commission activity had been going on in the case of certain estates in my constituency since the coming into operation of the 1923 Act. I know of one glaring case where the Minister for Finance, who was then Minister for Lands, assured this House that he was putting a certain section into an Act passed during his régime for the purpose of acquiring and dividing a certain estate which the commissioners had been prevented from dividing as a result of a decision in the courts. Surely it should have been possible to get that matter put right since 1936 and to have this estate divided. But, in answer to a question addressed to him two weeks ago by Deputy Flanagan, the Minister said that the position was just the same as it was in 1936 when that particular section was inserted in the Act. There must be something radically wrong when the Minister's intentions cannot be given effect to even under an amending Act in an area where there is very acute congestion. Deputy Gorry knows this particular estate very well and the extent to which congestion exists in that area.

Is it to be understood that, because of a decision given in the courts previous to 1936, although an amending Act was subsequently passed, nothing can be done to have this estate acquired and divided? I am not sure, but I believe that a scheme for the division of the estate was prepared and sanctioned by the commissioners, but could not be put into operation, or at least it has not yet been put into operation. What is the trouble in regard to that particular type of case?

I know of another case which has been brought under the personal notice of the Minister during the last two years where, as a result of agitation in the locality, the landowner concerned, without any threats so far as I am aware, agreed to sell his estate, including a large acreage of turbary, to the Land Commission. Deputy Flanagan raised this matter some time ago on the adjournment and the Minister wound up his speech by definitely suggesting—he did not say that Deputies were involved in the matter, and I certainly was not—that this landowner was forced by an agitation and by threats from people in the area to agree to sell. I know of no such threats in this particular case. I am referring to the Trench estate at Ballybrittas. If Deputy Gorry speaks in this debate, let him say if he knows of the landowner concerned being threatened. All the Deputies concerned were brought into this case because the usual land agitation was started in the area. Deputy Flanagan, being a very young and energetic Deputy, took a leading part in that agitation. Is it suggested by the Minister or by anybody else that, because Deputy Flanagan held a few public meetings in the area he, by his eloquence and by his conversations with the landowner concerned, actually forced the Landowner to agree to sell to the Land Commission? The Minister knows very well that the landowner did agree to sell. All I want to know is if any offer was made at any time by the Land Commission for the purchase of this estate and, if not, why not?

I understand from the Minister's speeches in the House and from conversations with him that the real reason why the Land Commission's acquisition activities have been suspended is because the Minister or the commissioners, and they know more about this matter than I do, feel that they could not acquire land at a reasonable price to enable them to allocate economic holdings at reasonable rents to those lucky enough to get divisions of land. Does that position still exist? I know that the price of land adjacent to towns and villages that has been sold in my constituency was far above the pre-war price; but I think that land that has been sold in recent times in the rural portions of my constituency has been sold at very little over the pre-war price. I dare say the Land Commission, if they acquire an estate or untenanted land, will not be expected to pay any more for that land than the landowner would get if he sold the land by free sale in the usual way. A decision will have to be taken by the Minister or by the commissioners at a reasonably early date to resume their usual activities and to complete the work for which the Land Commission was established, namely, the relief of congestion, so far as the commissioners can complete that job with the untenanted land at their disposal. I know their job is a difficult one.

Deputy Commons gave the Minister his opinion about an economic holding. I am sure the Minister will agree that an economic holding in the western part of the country is quite different from an economic holding in the Midlands. Deputy Commons talked about 30 or 40 acres being an economic holding. You can have 30 or 40 acres of bad land or bog land, either in the West or in the Midlands, with a valuation of anything from £5 to £10. So far as I know, that would not be regarded, and has not been regarded by the Land Commission as an economic holding in my constituency or in any of the adjoining counties.

An economic holding, as I understand it, according to the Land Commission interpretation, is a holding with a valuation of £20 or £25, which may mean from 25 to 40 acres of fairly good land. Of course you can have 100 acres of bad or bog land with a valuation of £20 or £25. In any case, there are good, sound, commonsense reasons for suggesting that a smaller holding with a smaller valuation might be regarded as an economic holding because of the smaller acreage of land available for division in the West as compared with the midland or southern counties.

The Minister brought in a Bill within the last two years—I voted for the measure—to give him power to take over holdings from persons who, in the opinion of the commissioners, do not work those holdings to the best possible advantage. I should like to hear from the Minister, if he has the figures at his disposal, the extent to which that Act has been used. Would it be correct to say that, generally speaking, all the persons who had not been making proper use of their holdings before the coming into operation of that Act have now been dispossessed and better tenants put in their places? I know of a few cases in my own constituency where individuals who, apparently, got legal tenancy of holdings never went into occupation of the houses on them. I know that in three cases up to quite recently they were not occupied. I presume it is the intention of the Minister to put decent, hard-working citizens into occupation of these holdings and not allow them, in these days of food shortage, to be left nominally in the possession of people who will not properly work them.

What is the present procedure of the commissioners with reference to selecting contractors for the building of houses on divided land? Is there any advertisement issued locally or nationally inviting suitable and qualified building contractors to tender? In some cases in my own area it was brought to my notice that contractors, whose qualifications were of a doubtful kind, were given these contracts. I approached the Minister by way of written communication and Parliamentary Question with reference to one such contractor. I had evidence that he was unwilling to pay to the men working on his building contracts, even the miserably low rate of wages that were paid to agricultural labourers.

It would pay the Minister to investigate these matters. I was informed that the Minister at one time was a qualified building contractor and he would know the right type of man to carry out a job of that kind. Is it correct that a contractor selected by the Land Commission is obliged by the terms of his contract to pay the local trade union rate of wages? Have any cases of the failure of such contractors to do so been brought under his notice and what steps, if any, in cases where such complaints are made, are generally taken by the commissioners to compel building contractors to pay the rate of wages normally paid to workers by building contractors in such areas? It would pay the commissioners to get suitable and qualified building contractors for this work. It would save money being spent later in having these houses put into a proper state of repair.

Will the Minister ask the commissioners to furnish him with a return— he could not give the figures off-hand or without reasonable notice—of the number of estates or untenanted lands where the claims of local people have been under active consideration since the 1923 Act came into operation and where the commissioners have not either prepared a scheme or put any scheme of division into operation? It would be a very interesting return. I am certain from what I know of my own constituency that Deputies would be amazed at the number of cases where activity was commenced immediately after the 1923 Act became operative but no division has yet taken place.

There is one matter which affects the Estimate and in my opinion it is a serious matter. I take it that when the Minister for Finance receives Estimates from the different Departments he has to be convinced that the amount asked is a reasonable one and will be spent in the current year. I notice that in sub-head (I) of the Land Commission Estimate—Improvements of Estates—the Minister asks for exactly the same amount for the coming year as was voted for the same purpose in the financial year 1946-47. We were furnished to-day with the Appropriation Accounts for the year 1945-46 and if the Minister will look at them he will find that under this sub-head a considerable amount went back into revenue in 1945-46.

I wonder whether the full amount of the Estimate under this sub-head for 1946-47 was spent for the purpose for which it was voted. Can the Minister give an undertaking that the amount now asked for the improvement of estates will be spent? If he says it will, nobody will be better pleased than I, but there is no use in asking for exactly the same amount as was voted last year, and having a big slice of that money going back into revenue. I regard the amount voted under this sub-head as money very usefully spent. It gives a considerable amount of employment on the making of roads and the building of houses. I shall be pleased if the Minister will tell us that it is the intention of the Land Commission to spend what is now being voted. I should also like to know if it is the intention of the Land Commission to spend as much money on the improvement of estates, the building of houses and the making of roads as was spent in pre-war years.

Dr. Brennan

As Deputies have indicated, the justification for the Land Commission as it exists is the effort to try to relieve congestion. I am satisfied that that is a big problem, particularly in view of the extreme congestion that is evident in certain parts of the country. Some time ago a White Paper was issued and it was estimated in that paper that the income derived from land is approximately five and a half times the valuation of the holdings. When we consider that some people are trying to exist on land with a valuation, as in my district, of £2 to £10, we can realise the problem the Minister has to face. Unless the great bulk of the people in certain districts in County Sligo are migrated to other parts of the country, I cannot see how the problem will be solved.

In that connection I must complain of the great delay which we have experienced in County Sligo with reference to the acquisition of land. Even when lands are acquired and the scheme is put partly into operation, it has taken years to complete it. I have in mind one instance where a farm of land was taken over in my district 16 years ago. The fences which divided the holding in that case were not completed until last year. The holding from which the man was transferred is still vacant. I understand that an effort has been made recently to give back to a man his original holding plus the holding which he acquired in another part of the county. I think these delays are unnecessary and un-called for, and I would ask the Minister to try to speed up matters.

I think the standstill Order which operated during the war has led to many abuses. I was sorry that Order was ever made because it gave an opportunity to selfish people to come in and buy land over the heads of people in congested areas. It is a thing of the past now and I do not know what can be done about it except that where lands were bought over the heads of the local people in congested areas, the Land Commission might see that these lands are acquired by the Land Commission, now that they are operating under normal conditions again. These lands should be divided amongst the uneconomic holders. There were a few instances in County Sligo where people who were actually agitating for the division of certain farms when they found that the standstill Order had come into operation, went, although they had signed an appeal to ask the Land Commission to acquire the land, behind the backs of their neighbours and bought the land. I think they should not have been allowed to get away with that and the Land Commission should acquire lands which were the subject of agitation prior to the coming into force of the standstill Order.

I should like to point out also that the small farmers in that part of the country are well worthy of any land which they may be given. Somebody compared the quota of tillage carried out by farmers normally resident in Leinster and that carried out by migrants from the West on land which had been allotted to them. I think that the quota of tillage done by migrants from the West compared very favourably in the vast majority of cases with that done by the farmers normally resident in these areas. If any of these migrants slip up or if anybody who has come from the West has been a failure, the papers are inclined to seize on that and to make a lot of capital out of it. I think the progressive farmers who come from the West can use their land to the best advantage and are quite prepared to do their quota of tillage. These facts should be mentioned side by side with the very occasional failure which has taken place.

In my opinion the problem of congestion will not be speedily solved unless the Land Commission give more powers to local officials and unless we have less centralisation of authority. The local officials should be given an opportunity to acquire land speedily. If a farm of land is offered for sale in a congested area it is frequently bought and the consent for the transfer is granted before the Land Commission make any move. The local Land Commission inspector should be vested with powers under which it would be possible for him on seven days' notice to warn the local people that he proposed to acquire a particular holding offered for sale at a fair and reasonable price. I am not suggesting that we should interfere with the right of free sale but I do think that where land is offered for sale in a congested area, the Land Commission should step in and acquire that land at once. In that way they would help to relieve congestion in the West. So much for the complaints.

I should like to bear tribute to the Land Commission for the splendid bog development schemes they have put into operation in my area. I refer particularly to the scheme which took place in Tireragh in my constituency, which was going on from 1930 to 1939. That area is now one of the principal sources of supply of turf for Ballina and Sligo. If they had not the foresight and the wisdom to develop that bog, the fuel position in County Sligo to-day would be much worse than it is. I should like again to stress the question of giving more power to local officials to acquire speedily lands which are offered for sale.

One other point which I should like to call to the attention of the Minister has reference to the unsatisfactory conditions of employment of Land Commission officials. So far as I know, under the conditions which obtained some years ago there was only one fulltime permanent official in Sligo. I do not know whether the same conditions prevail to-day but, if so, I think it is very unfair. I think that a probation period of a couple of years should be sufficient for every official and that if the official is found satisfactory at the end of that period he should be appointed on a permanent basis, under which he would have security and pension rights. I think it unfair that a man going on to 50 or 60 years. although a whole-time official, should still hold an appointment only on a temporary basis.

In that connection, I think that, occasionally, selection boards here in Dublin interview such officials with a view to putting them on the permanent staff. I think that the local inspector who has had experience of such official work for two years or over, should be competent to tell the commissioners whether these people are worthy of permanent employment. I would ask the Minister to consider that point and to see that Land Commission officials will not be forced to work on the unsatisfactory conditions under which they are obliged to work to-day. It is not good for them. They cannot be good officials if they feel that at any time they may be thrown out of employment, without any pension rights, without any redress or without any hope of having made any provision for their widows in case anything should happen to them. I think the Minister should take that matter up with the commissioners and see that officials, after two years' trial at least, should be placed on a whole-time permanent basis.

Gearóid Mac Phárthaláin

Ní hé aon oráid fhada atá fúmsa a dhéanamh ar an vóta seo. Nílim ag dul ag cur síos i ndiaidh a chéile ar na dúichí agus na feilmeacha atá fós le roinnt i mo dháilcheantar-sa. Tá a roinnt curtha go han-mhinic faoi bhráid Choimisiún na Talún ag na Teachtaí Dála, agus is maith is feasach an Coimisiún cá bhfuil siad suite agus cén stáid atá ar na scológa bochta atá in aici leo. Nílim, ach oiread an iarraidh seo, ag dul ag brú an iomarca cainte ar an Aire faoi imirce as na ceanntracha cumhanga go dtí an achréidh agus réiteach na ngabhaltas ins na ceantracha sin. Budh mhaith liom, amh, a mheabhrú don Aire go bhfuil an bhróg ag brú ar an gcos orthu ar dhá bhealach, níl úsáid iomlán na talún ar a gcumas cheal réitithe agus tá buntáiste na scéimeanna tithe coinnithe uathu an fhad is atá a gcuid gabhaltas gan athshocrú. Is leor an píonós sin orthu. Ach tá pionós níos measa ná sin orthu. Nuair a bhíos ganntan bídh ann, is iad is túisce a fhuilingíos cruatan agus anró mar gheall air. Tá siad ag fulaingt faoi láthair ceal a ndothan beatha—níos mó ná aon uair le linn an chogaidh cé is moite de 1942. Os ag tagairt don cheist seo mé, ba mhaith liom beart nua a mholadh don Aire, agus, sé sin, roinnt fear óg a thoghadh as na ceantracha sin agus iad a chur ag obair ar chuid de na feilmneacha móra atá i seilbh an Choimisiúin le biadh a sholáthar dá muintir féin. Maran feidir scéim ceart imirce a chur i bhfeidhm faoi láthair, chabhródh beart mar seo leis an gcur éigeantach agus dhéanfadh sé leas mór do na daoine bochta thiar. Molaim don Aire é mar bheart bhéarfadh meanmaí agus misneach dóibh agus a ghríosfadh chun dóchais agus díograise iad.

Mr. Donnellan

I am sorry to take up the time of the House so late, but I am bound to hold up the Minister. I am bound to hold him up as I am one of those Deputies responsible for the West of Ireland. Deputy Burke said that the Irish Land Commission and its inspectors had grown old and wise. In my opinion the Fianna Fáil Party has grown old and foolish. I do not blame the Land Commission officials one bit, because they are, after all, merely officials. Officials in other Departments would act in exactly the same way if they were permitted to do so. I blame the Government and the Minister for the land situation in this country to-day.

In the first place, we had the great scare during the past five or six years that there was a war on. Whenever we raised a question in this House, that was the reply we got. Not so long ago I had a question down for the Minister for Lands. That question was replied to by the Minister for Justice in the absence of the Minister for Lands and the reply was: "Do you not know we had a war?" I suppose the activities of the Land Commission were held up during the last seven or eight years because there was a war. Now, because there was a war and bad weather they are going to be held up for another seven or eight years. The Government and the Minister may have got away with it in the past because of the scare of war but the tenant farmers of this country will submit to no scare in the future. I do not say that as a threat. I think the Minister himself will admit that the one thing responsible for the election of the Fianna Fáil Party as the Government of this country was the policy they told the people they were prepared to carry out in regard to land in this country.

It is well known to the members of the Government Party, Deputy Dr. Brennan included—one would almost imagine that it is with Deputy Commons he ought to be—and Deputies Killilea and Beegan from my own constituency in Galway. They must fully realise the position even though they probably do not wish to say so. They must realise that the Land Commission are not doing their duty. If they do believe that I would ask them to stand up and say so. There is one matter which I want to mention specifically in relation to Mayo from which area two Deputies in recent times did a month in Sligo Jail. It could never be said. as it was hinted throughout the country in the past, that they went there because they were opposed to free sale. Nothing could be further from the truth. They are not opposed to free sale. That is just as untrue to-day as was the statement made four years ago by the Minister for Local Government in Galway that Clann na Talmhan Party stood for the grabbers and the ranchers. I wonder would the people now refer back to the statements made at that time and find out for themselves which is the Party that stands for the grabbers and the ranchers in South Mayo and in my county in Galway. About nine months ago an estate was up for sale—the Braddick estate at Kilclooney. I approached the Land Commission and asked them to make investigations because of the number of uneconomic holdings in that area. The place was sold privately. I was requested by the tenants to approach the man who bought that land. The tenants and myself approached him and, having explained the position, he said he did not think there was such a great demand for land and that if he got his money back he would be prepared to relinquish it.

I again approached the Land Commission and asked them to value the land. Nothing has been done up to the present time. Sometimes I wonder what the purpose of the Land Commission is. Undoubtedly the Minister is the best Minister in this House in my opinion. I do say that much even though it may not be a compliment. But he is certainly not doing his duty. I think the Land Commission as it exists at present should be abolished. The only work they seem to be doing is collecting the land annuities.

Not so very long ago I put a question down for the Minister and I got the permission of the Chair to raise the matter subsequently on the adjournment. As the Estimates were about to be introduced I deferred the matter until now. A certain individual, a married man, who lives in Tooroe, within a mile of an estate known as the Payne estate situated at Loughrea, had a piece of land beside the estate with a valuation of £9 1s. Od. He is a married man with a wife and family and his wife is living with her own people. That estate was divided by the Land Commission. How was it divided? They gave additional land to the people whose valuations were £18 10s. Od. I made representations to the Land Commission but they were useless. This particular man was an old I.R.A. man and he had made certain sacrifices for his country. The Old I.R.A. Association passed a resolution and sent it to the Minister. It was no use. The only reply was that this man's needs would be considered when more land became available in the area. He must have known then that no more land was available in that area.

There is an estate known as Creevere in Gurteen, Woodlawn, Ballinasloe. Deputy Beegan did his best in regard to that long before I came into this House. I have been asking about it since I came into the House. Within the last few days, I am glad to say, I received a letter from the Minister, that I appreciate very much, intimating that they are going to take action. I hope they do take action. The Lord help them when the Estimate comes up for discussion this time next year if they fail to take action. There is a place called Alle lands belonging to Costello, a place called Brown's Grove, Tuam. The owner came to me and got me to offer the land to the Land Commission. There are about 22 tenants there whose valuations range from about £4 to £11, who have applied for the land. The Land Commission are still considering the matter. The owner has offered the land provided he gets a suitable holding. The tenants are looking for the land. That matter has been under consideration for the past five months. I suppose it will be under consideration until another war comes.

A fortnight ago I was out at a place called Cloontue, which is a few miles from where Deputy Killilea lives, where there are 14 tenants huddled together. I know that the Land Commission inspectors do not realise the conditions under which some people are living. Application was made in regard to those tenants within the last week or ten days, but I hope that something will be done in the matter.

There is a farm at a place called Peake, Dunmore, where I live. Deputy Killilea knows all about it. It has been in the hands of the Land Commission for the last 14 to 15 years. Four or five crops of oats have been taken out of it. By the time the tenants get it they may just as well be sent to the county home in Loughrea because that land would not be able to rear a worm. The Land Commission are black-marketing what they should have given over to the tenants years ago.

I wonder would any other section of the community bear what the hard-working tenant farmers are suffering from the Land Commission at the present time and have been suffering for years. Does not the Minister realise the reason that we have no food in this country to-day? It is because the people are not placed on the land; uneconomic holders are not given economic holdings. If they were, they would produce food in plenty. Unfortunately, every week for the past 12 months my job has been going to the Passport Office to get passports for the sons of those uneconomic farmers to enable them to go to England to earn the living there that is denied them at home. What a great advantage they could be if they were working and producing food here.

Let no man think that the view of Clann na Talmhan is that if a man has an extra bit of land it should be taken from him. Such is not our view. Our view is that where there is untenanted land and where there is a crowd of uneconomic holders living around that untenanted land, it is the duty of the Land Commission to acquire it, to compensate the owner, and to divide it among those tenants. It is not the policy of Clann na Talmhan to stop free sale. Far from it. We believe every man is entitled to the value of his property, we believe he should get it but we believe, and by it we stand or fall, that grabbers should not be allowed in where there is a number of uneconomic holders who have to export their children under passport issued by this Government, as you would export cattle or sheep or pigs. That is what is happening to-day.

I honestly believe it is no use in talking. The Minister was a very active man in his day, I know, a man who meant well but, after a certain length of time in this House we get sleepy, we get lazy, we do not mind what happens. It seems to be the policy to keep things fairly set outside so that when the next election is due, the Government will be re-elected. That appears to be the policy. It refers especially to the Department of Lands. I have not the slightest doubt that the greatest responsibility for that lies with the members of the Fianna Fáil Party from rural Ireland who know the difference and who do not keep the Land Commission and the Minister pressed to settle the land question, and thus give a chance to these poor uneconomic holders.

It is a good job that we have some people in this House who have at last come forward to say that no land should be divided. There was no need for them to come forward because that, in my opinion, is now the policy of the Land Commission and of the Minister for Lands. I would appeal to the Minister, even at the last hour. He knows rural Ireland. He knows that its people are going away. He knows that when a man begins to talk about land division now he is laughed at. He is told: "That is what Fianna Fáil told us 20 years ago. They have been 15 years in office and the same thing is happening." The late Minister for Agriculture, Deputy Hogan, represented the constituency of East Galway. He was very often held up to ridicule.

I probably did my part myself in holding him up because he was not dealing with the land question as he should. I have not the slightest doubt that it was the promises of the Fianna Fáil Party, of which the Minister is a member, of how they would deal with the question that was responsible for its being returned as a Government in this country. I would advise the Government, and especially the Minister, that if they wish to remain in office, and apparently they do, they should demand greater activity from the Land Commission. According to a statement made by the Minister for Justice, there will soon be another gallop around the course, and unless there is greater activity by the Land Commission it is my opinion the Minister will never keep to the rails this time, and he knows as well as I do that the runners who keep to the rails and keep the others on the outside will most probably get across the line first.

I will finish by saying to the Minister: Come out and see that these thousands of acres of land which are in the hands of the Land Commission are distributed amongst those uneconomic holders. Do not black-market those lands which belong to the tenants and not to the Land Commission, which is what you are doing at the moment. You are black-marketing them in tillage, you are black-marketing them in such a way they are more of an encumbrance than an addition at the present time because, as the Minister should know, any land that has for a number of years been in tillage is not able to rear a worm and those poor tenants will not be able to work that land or bring it back into heart again. I would appeal to the Minister to see, before his Estimate comes before this House next year, that a lot of these matters are remedied. If he does so, I will be the first man in this House to get up and clap him on the back. If he does not, and if I am here, I assure him that he will go through the mill 100 per cent. harder than he is going through it now.

Captain Giles

The Minister is not worrying.

Mr. Beegan

This question of the Vote for the Land Commission has been before this House for the last 24 years. According to some of the statements that have been made, little or no progress at all has been effected. The same statements are made time and again. The Minister is blamed for what is termed "Land Commission inactivity." Activity, indeed, has been very limited since 1940. Previous to 1940 I think their activities were very, very rapid. It was stated in this House by Deputy Commons, and it was a true statement, that as far as land acquisition, division, the selection of allottees, the price paid for land, from whom it should be acquired, etc., are concerned, the Minister has no authority. If that is the case what can the Minister do? If he should come to this House, as has been suggested, and ask for powers to get back full control of the Land Commission and the right to direct the Land Commission and its activities, I believe that at least every member of the Opposition Parties would oppose it, and rightly so. I believe too that a large section on this side of the House, if it were left to a free vote, would oppose it also.

Mr. Donnellen

Why?

Mr. Beegan

Because we have had experience of it and I am not necessarily referring to the term of office of the Cumann na nGael Government. I have as much experience of land division and the activities of the Congested Districts Board and the Estates Commissioners as anybody in this House. Land in my part of the country was bought very soon after the passing of the Land Act in 1903. A great deal of land was taken over in that district by the Congested Districts Board and by the Estates Commissioners which was divided, and very fine work was done. However, there were people who alleged at that time that undue influence was being brought to bear on both the Congested Districts Board and the Estates Commissioners.

Why do you not get out those fellows who are holding up progress?

Mr. Beegan

We were sent here to do a job and we will do it until such time as the people who sent us here relieve us of the task. We will not go out because somebody says we ought to go out. Every Department of State should go into that. It is a big job and it would take a colossal amount of money—let that be clearly understood. Density of population is all right provided the people have the resources to provide them with a livelihood. That is the difficulty in the West of Ireland —the density of population is there, but they have not the resources to provide them with a livelihood. The manufacturers are not inclined to establish factories near them and it would be very hard to compel them. It is a difficult job. A lot of things would have to be taken into consideration and these people would have to get a fairly free hand.

As regards relieving congestion, and holding out the hope to the people that their problem can be solved by land division alone, that simply cannot be done. I will get away from that and speak on some other matters.

The improvement of estates was mentioned and I agree with the speaker who said that the local inspectors are not being given enough discretion. I believe there is too much centralisation. The inspectors who are in daily contact with the people, men with years of experience, are the best to do the job, without having every phase of their duties questioned here by a central authority. I believe the inspectors who find most favour in Land Commission headquarters are the inspectors who carry on a system of what I might term false economy. They are the inspectors who try to get a job done cheaply. It is really only half done, and then you have the people of the district coming to you for years pointing out the defects in the work done. You have other inspectors who make a proper estimate and who get the work completed there and then. I believe the people who do that are least in favour in the Land Commission offices, and that should not be the case.

As regards grants for housing, I believe that the Land Commission are lacking in their duty because some people who, 20 years ago, were promised new houses and were told that they would get assistance by way of a grant in advance, recently got a document from the Land Commission telling them, although their holdings are still unvested, to apply to the Department of Local Government. They have more fortunate neighbours, some of whom have better houses than the people to whom the promise was made. Those people who were passed over are now being told to apply to the Department of Local Government for a £70 grant instead of a grant of £200 or £240, such as was given to their neighbours. I think that is not right and, as regards any houses being built now, the grant of £200 is not at all sufficient. I believe that in cases where there was a £200 grant in 1939, that grant should be increased to £380 now if that man is to put up the same type of house as he would have erected in 1939.

As regards the development of bogs, my colleague, Deputy Brennan, praised the Land Commission for the work they have done. I cannot go that far because there are thousands of acres of bog in County Galway that have been left untouched for years. I move to report progress.

Progress reported; the Committee to sit again.

The Dáil adjourned at 10.30 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Wednesday, 14th May, 1947.

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht - Tuesday, 13 May 1947