On the motion for the Adjournment, Deputy Barry gave notice that he would raise the subject matter of Question No. 32 on the Order Paper of the 18th of the month.
Committee on Finance. - Adjournment Debate—Allotment of Kilworth (Cork) Lands.
On the 18th May, 1960, I asked the Minister for Lands:
if he is aware that his Department have recently prepared for planting nine acres of very fertile arable land at Ballinvoher, Kilworth, County Cork; and whether in lieu of allotting arable land for this purpose arrangements will be made to allot it to an adjoining landowner who owns eighteen acres and is very deserving of an enlargement of his holding.
The Minister in reply said:
The plot in question is situated in the middle of a compact forest block and it would be most undesirable from a management viewpoint to dispose of it. The area has been in the hands of the Forestry Division since 1923. Up to 1956 it was in use as a nursery. It is no longer required for that purpose and it is proposed to plant it in the coming winter.
Subsequent to that I asked some supplementary questions and the Minister answered them. As a result of the answers he gave me, I craved the indulgence of the Ceann Comhairle to raise this matter on the Adjournment. I believe that the question I asked was not answered in so far as the first part of it was concerned. The first part of the question was: "if he is aware that his Department have recently prepared for planting nine acres of very fertile arable land ..."
I pressed the Minister for an answer as to whether that was so or not. I am afraid that he carefully avoided giving any answer. In the four supplementary questions I asked him if he or his Department would agree that the land was, in fact, arable. I am very conversant with this plot of land. I have seen it on more than one occasion. I had the honour and distinction some years ago of being selected by another Department to define what was arable land and what was non-arable. I was a tillage inspector for the Department of Agriculture for four years. At that time I worked in three different counties and none of my decisions at that time as to whether land was arable or non-arable was ever questioned.
In the case of these nine acres, I have no hesitation in the world in stating now that they are certainly arable. It was always my confirmed belief that where land was arable it was not the function, the wish nor, indeed, the desire, of the Department of Lands to take such land for planting purposes. We are assured by the Minister that this land is being prepared for planting purposes. About ten days ago the Department's workers came in to plough this plot. The owner of the adjoining eighteen acres asked the person who came in to plough to cease operations. That man ceased ploughing. Half of the plot is still growing rich green grass. For that reason, I think that this is a matter of the utmost importance.
The farmer in question—one could call him such with 18 acres of land— made a living with the aid of these nine acres which he rented from the Forestry Department for the past five years. He now finds that this nine acre plot which is far better land than most of the land in these eighteen acres is being taken from him and ploughed for planting purposes. All I can say is that the Department is taking the bread out of his mouth. The eighteen acres which he now holds are of a wet nature. The nine acres of which he had the use and which are within a short distance from him are a bit high and dry. He could use them when he could not use his own eighteen acres.
The disturbing feature about this whole matter is that this young man was recently married. He qualified for a grant and put up a haybarn in this place. There is a good slate house and outoffices. His father and mother are still living with him. They are both old people, in their 80's and 90's. Is he not disturbed when he finds, as he does, that because he will not have the use of these nine acres not only his young wife but his parents also must leave their home and go look for a living elsewhere? I do not say that without knowing the position exactly.
I have been seven years in the House and this is my first time to raise a question on the Adjournment. I am putting it to the Minister in all sincerity that he should reconsider this case and see if there is some rule or regulation in his Department which would permit of the sale of the land. Surely the Minister is a man of common sense and can use his commonsense to find some letting agreement to give this young man his own place? That can only be done if the Minister now consents to allow him by rent, sale, or any other arrangement, to retain possession of these nine acres which, in fact, are better than any of the eighteen acres.
In one of the supplementary replies which the Minister gave he said: "The plot is in the middle of a forest that was planted in 1926." He is practically right there but I want to say to him that the plot is quite adjacent to this man's home. This man has a right of way to a well fifteen yards from the plot. In fact, the exact measurement is ten yards but I say fifteen lest I might be accused of putting the case the wrong way. The Minister also said on that occasion: "My information is that part of other lands which he holds was in the hands of the local autioneer for auction up to a few months ago." That is so, though I do not think he is right in saying it was in the hands of a local auctioneer.
This man did make an attempt to dispose of a few acres about a mile away from his own home. He did so because these few acres were at the end of a long, narrow boreen used by many other people. There was some little trouble between this man and another farmer and, to get out of trouble, he decided to get rid of these few acres, if he could. The Minister used that to make his case and I do not think he was quite fair in the way in which he used it. He may have got some of the facts, but he did not get all the facts.
I say this is arable land. I inspected it exactly two months ago. I found then four cattle and ten sheep on it. They were doing quite well. I do not think the Minister disputed that it was arable. Is it not strange to have this situation in existence as between two Departments of State? The Department of Agriculture is spending hundreds of thousands of pounds in trying to reclaim land which will never be usable as land. Here is the Department of Lands planting lands which even to the casual observer is good, sound arable land. I make a case for this man not because he is the man he is but as a matter of principle. It will be a bad day's work if we cannot relax rules and regulations to give a man some small concession.
I am anticipating some of the things the Minister may say. The Minister may say that this man, or his father, sold this land to the Forestry Section, or to someone else. What in actual fact happened was that this man's grandfather gave over this land many years ago entirely against his own wishes and inclinations. It is true that he was paid for it. It is also true that he did not accept the payment at the time. The money was lodged in the bank. Subsequently he drew it. We all know what happened in those days. This man's father has told me, and I have no reason to disbelieve him, that he saw certain people come in and break up the spinning wheel in, the yard. It is not an argument then to say that this land was sold originally. It was not sold; it was compulsorily taken. There is no other way to describe it.
I do not know what the Minister may say about the recent little bit of agitation there was in this area, but I can assure him there is a good deal of local feeling in this matter. A great number of people have gone out to see this land since this agitation started. They are all agreed that the land is good, arable land. They are all agreed that it does not make sense to deprive this man of his living. I wonder where will we get, if we continue annoying people in this way, the turnover of land necessary for forestry purposes.
Next week I shall have another question to the Minister with regard to the way in which the Valuation Office treats people when their land is taken over for forestry. This man is an industrious young man. His aged parents are residing with him. They have a very nice comfortable home. Recently a new hay barn was erected and grants were given for the reconstruction of outoffices. In view of all those facts the Minister should seriously reconsider the position before he asks the Department to continue ploughing the other half of this nine acres.
With regard to the part that is ploughed, it will be quite easy to turn back the sod again into the furrow. The man himself will be quite prepared to do that. If there is any fencing problem, as there may be, the man himself is quite prepared to go to the expense of putting up the necessary fencing. He is quite prepared to lease or rent this land, or make any deal he can in regard to it. He wants it only for a few years until he has enough capital to leave it and get alternative accommodation. The total acreage he has is 17. The rateable valuation is £7 10s. on the land and £2 on the buildings. He has had the land rented for five years from the Land Commission.
I do not think I am unreasonable when I ask, for the sake of goodwill and, more important still, because of the principle involved in breaking up arable land for forestry purposes while at the same time spending thousands on reclaiming land which will never be arable, for a little more give and take. Even at this late hour I appeal to the Minister, in all sincerity, to treat this man in a sympathetic manner and give him the opportunity of remaining in the country, with his aged parents, and the opportunity of rearing his family here.
I do not think the Deputy has made a case. I do not think that I was unfair to the man concerned in anything I said on this matter. I gave the facts as they were given to me. It is true that he had only a temporary convenience letting of this land for four years—not five as stated by the Deputy. It is true that this piece of land is in the middle of a forestry development project. With regard to the fencing, it would take in our estimation £300 to fence this piece, leaving aside all questions of fire hazard and so forth in having a small plot like that, held by an outside interest, in the centre of development. Maps are available and I invite the Deputy to look at them.
Without wishing to interrupt the Minister, would it not be better to look at the actual——
Order.
As to whether or not this land is arable, the Deputy is aware that it was used for forestry and it was not today or yesterday that this portion was taken over for forestry. I understand it has been earmarked for forestry since 1923 and up to recently this particular portion was used as a nursery. The man in whom the Deputy is interested got the grazing in 1956-57 for £20 for the eight acres involved. In his view the value of the land is not the same as Deputy Barry's because he came back the following year to make a case to have the rent reduced to £16. To use his own words, he said: "You could not compare this land with other land for it is in the middle of a mountain and it is very poor and dry". With all due respect for Deputy Barry's opinion, I got exactly the same information from my officials as to the quality of this land.
Leaving aside the quality of the land, it is not in general the job of the Forestry Division to do the Land Commission work of relieving congestion. Generally speaking, the Forestry Division get their land by agreement with the people concerned. They do not look for arable land. Where the land concerned is arable they invariably hand it over to the Land Commission to be dealt with by that body. As I have stated, this man has some of his own land up for sale. He had only a temporary convenience letting of this piece of land for the last four years. He made a case for a reduction in his rent because of the very poor quality of the land. He has been, up to last week at all events, in the employment of the Forestry Division for a great number of years.
I do not think, in the circumstances, it is necessary for me to say any more in this matter. It is essential from the forestry point of view that this small patch in the middle of a developed forest should be planted. Outside the question of the rights and wrongs of the type of land, there are questions of fire hazards and so on with a small plot like this in the middle of a valuable forest. Having given every consideration to what the Deputy conveyed to me, I find myself constrained to agree with the judgment of the forestry officials in this matter.
Mr. Ryan
On a point of order, Sir——
Tá an Dáil ar athló go dti 3 p.m. Dé Mairt, 31 Bealtaine, 1960.
The Dáil adjourned at 5.20 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Tuesday, 31st May, 1960.