About two years ago the Land Commission decided to give Mrs. Mary Anne Byrne, Duffery, Hacketstown, County Carlow, an addition to her holding in order to raise her uneconomic holding to an economic holding. They gave her a small parcel of land on which there happened to be a dwelling-house. The dwelling-house on that parcel of land was in much better repair and was a much better house than the one in which Mrs. Byrne was living, and I think, as far as my recollection goes, that she was given the preference of living in either house. However, that does not enter into the question and she decided to remain in her old home and the Land Commission decided to convert the dwelling-house on the new parcel of land into an outhouse.
The formality they pursued in that case was merely to take the chimney off the dwelling house and call it an outhouse. Since that allocation was made to Mrs. Byrne her son got married. Her son was living with her but on his marriage he took temporary accommodation on a farm where he was employed. His employer decided to acquire that house from him when he terminated his employment as he required the house for his own use. This created a position in which this woman's son with his wife and child had no home whatever and the result is that the man has got to live with his mother while his wife and child had to return to her people. Mrs. Byrne applied to the Land Commission for permission to allow her to sublet the second house on the holding to her son. I do not suppose that there was any question of charging rent but she wished to allow him to live in it since he had no home of his own. That seems a perfectly reasonable application and particularly reasonable in view of the long agitation which An Taoiseach has been carrying on to secure a second house on every farm so that the eldest son can marry and settle down. The Taoiseach has been agitating for that for a long time and he has succeeded in getting it in this new housing Bill, but, pending the operation of the new housing Bill and pending the erection of cottages by the local authorities, this women's son has no home and it seems to me to be a hardship to refuse to allow her to settle the home on this holding on her son.
The Minister may say that there is nothing to prevent this man from bringing his wife and child into his mother's home, but there are other members of the family and the house, which is very small, is already sufficiently crowded. The net result of the Land Commission's stubborn attitude, or the Minister's stubborn attitude, is that this man is deprived of his home and his wife has to live with her own people. Application was made to the Land Commission, and I made application also on behalf of this woman and her son, and they sent the following reply:—
"With reference to the representations made on your behalf by Deputy Patrick Cogan, I am desired by the Land Commission to state that they are not prepared to permit the building on the parcel of land, let to you under agreement for letting for temporary convenience, to be used as a dwellinghouse. They adhere to their decision that this building should be used only as an outoffice."
I have no fault to find with the Land Commission as they are probably bound up by rules and regulations. This particular parcel of land was given under a temporary convenience agreement rather than a purchase agreement and that adds to the difficulties of the Land Commission, but the Minister is a strong man and is, I think, a man who does not like to allow himself to be bound by too much red tape or green tape or any other kind of tape. If he says that this woman should be permitted to give the house to her son, means would be found to implement the Minister's wishes, even if necessary by revising existing legislation because similar cases may arise from time to time. So I would call on the Minister to deal with this matter. The matter may seem to the Minister and to some Deputies small, but an important principle is involved which is worthy of consideration.
I would certainly not have raised the matter on the adjournment if the Minister had been a little more informative in replying to me at question time. The Minister is the very soul of courtesy in normal times but perhaps the times we are living in are not absolutely normal and the Minister may have been affected thereby. He certainly gave very abrupt answers to very polite supplementary questions. I appeal to the Minister now to use his powers while he still wields them to see that this young man is not deprived of what is a natural right, his own home on his parents' farm when such a home is available.