It was in answer to something I said. However, perhaps the Minister did not mean that. I have before me a letter I received today from a person who is complaining about a farm at Cullentra, which is in the Longwood area of County Meath. This is a case of a man who got a house and farm some time ago. Since then he has died and his wife has shut up the house and gone to live in England but she has set the land. This land had been in the possession of those people for only a few years. The house, as a result of being closed up, is deteriorating. Why should this be allowed to happen while men who have no holdings but who require land for stock have to pay as much as £300 per year for grass on the 11-month system?
I am sure the Minister can understand the amount of discontent that practices of this nature can cause to people who have spent all their lives in an area, who are trying to eke out an existence on a small holding, who may be given six or seven acres while somebody brought in from outside is given 35 to 40 acres but later moves to England and sets the land.
That is one instance but there was another instance where a farm was put up for sale. The Land Commission were asked if they would be prepared to buy this farm, adjoining which were two people whose holdings were uneconomic. These people would have been very glad to have got that farm and, although the rent would have been high, they would have been prepared to pay it. However, what happened was that two speculators from outside were allowed to buy the farm. One of them bought it as a park for cattle he would be bringing to fairs a few miles away. The other man was the local veterinary surgeon. Perhaps he might stable a horse or two on it. In any case, they bought the land that was required by other people who wished to make a living from it.
Recently, Deputies Hilliard, Bruton and I accompanied a deputation to the Minister in connection with the Kolln estate. That deputation represented 30 or 40 people who were living within a few miles of the estate and who were anxious to obtain a portion of the land. Some of them had cattle for which they were forced to rent land and some of this rented land was part of the Kolln estate. These were the type of people to whom the Minister has referred time and again as excellent people. In my part of the country they would be referred to as "snug" people. Some of them take up employment but put part of what they earn into building up their holdings so that they will have something for their children. However, this land was divided in a way that appeared to those of us who knew the area to be stupid. As a result of the deputation I understand that some of the people concerned were accommodated, but others were not. They were ruled out, not because they were not entitled to be considered but because they were living more than the half mile or the mile distance which the Commissioners have laid down.
As I have asked time and again, can anybody show me anything in the legislation dealing with land that stipulates that people outside that radius should not be eligible for land? There is no such regulation; it was simply thought of by somebody who considered it to be an easy way out. Of course, it is much easier to deal with a radius of a mile or a half mile, but the result of this is that resentment has turned to anger and into a determination that this must not continue. I do not believe in breaking the law but I see people in the cities and towns organising themselves into various organisations for the purpose of fighting for what they consider to be their rights and certainly I would be the last person to condemn small farmers and landless men for fighting for what they consider to be their right—the right to be given portion of an estate that is being divided.
When the 1965 Act was being put through the House, one of the penal clauses was that which stipulated that a local person who was given land would have to pay a full annuity while a migrant or certain others would have to pay only a half annuity. At the end of the economic war, Fianna Fáil made a great song and dance of being able to announce that annuities were being halved but there was not such a song and dance when the position was being reversed so that certain people would be charged a full annuity. We now have the situation whereby a local man who is given a protion of land may have to pay as much as £20 in rent alone per acre per annum while a man who may be living beside him but who came from outside the area will have to pay only £10. That is not just.
It is not a question of lands not being available, as I can point out from a list I have before me. This information was given by the Minister recently. It will be seen from this list that certain farms have been in the hands of the Land Commission for a very long time. The Land Commission officials have told me time and again —of course, I believe what they tell me because I have no reason to do otherwise and I have no complaints to make in relation to my dealings with them—that they lose money on the farms they have in their possession but which for one reason or another they cannot divide immediately after acquisition or even shortly afterwards.
I quote figures from columns 1816, 1817 and 1818 of the Official Report for the 23rd February, 1971. I should be interested to know why the Booth estate of 42 acres at Baconstown, which was acquired on the 5/6/63 has not been divided. Also, the Daly estate of 231 acres which was taken over shortly after 1963. Also, the following: Kolln, 450 acres, 11/9/64; Curran estate at Loughanstown, 58 acres, 3/12/63; Byrne estate at Curraghtown, 44 acres, 10/9/64. Portion of those and of the four I shall mention now has been allocated. There was the Smith estate at Clonardan of 100 acres which was acquired on the 7/12/64, the Develter estate at Craigs of 15 acres, acquired on the 1/12/64. There is the Austin estate of 62 acres at Balnagon which was acquired on the 14/12/64 and the Plastics estate of 237 acres at Grennanstown which was acquired on the 26/2/65. There was also the Smyth estate at Mellifont. This estate comprises 801 acres and was acquired on the 5/8/65. I do not know why nothing has been done about that. Also, the Smyth estate at Rathmanoo which comprises 143 acres and was taken over on the 31/8/65. I was told that this estate has not been divided because there was some difficulty in deciding how it could be divided in order to ensure that it be used properly, but six years later the position is the same. There is the Jeffers estate of 120 acres at Glassallen, acquired on the 2/11/64; the Naper estate of 77 acres at Loughcrew, most of which has been divided; the Coffey estate of 21 acres at Drissoge acquired on the 16/3/66; the Higgins estate of 34 acres at Baconstown, acquired on the 12/12/66, and so on. Further down the list we see an estate of 208 acres that was acquired on the 24/4/67, 288 acres acquired on the 4/12/67 and many others. The acreages are 109, 174, 29, 152, 136, 192, 81, 282, 76, 77, 124, 20, 28, 45, 66, 23, 69, 197, 52, 101, 66, 34, 27, 240, 212, and 341. That brings us up to the 31st December, 1969.
All these farms in County Meath are in the possession of the Land Commission. Added on are the estates taken in 1970, the O'Malley estate, Allenstown, 28 acres; Chambers estate, Laracer, 251 acres; O'Connell estate, Gibstown Demesne, 30 acres; Carroll estate, Hallstown, 281 acres; Dublin Wine Ltd. estate, Dogstown, 143 acres; Keppel estate, Drewstown Great, 287 acres; Bury estate, Drewstown, 287 acres; FitzSimons estate, Cloncarreel, 55 acres; McGuinness estate, Gibstown, 22 acres; and the Ward estate, Cloghreagh, 28 acres. That brings us to 2nd December, 1970. All this land in County Meath is in the possession of the Land Commission and they tell me they are losing money on land which they hold over any period and that if they let the land they are losing so much on it. Will anyone tell me why it is that, that being so, the land is still held?
There is one reason and it is that the Land Commission have a policy of bringing migrants from the west of Ireland and giving them farms in County Meath and other areas, and they are finding it extremely difficult to persuade such migrants to come over because, while they are asking the local people to pay the full annuity, the migrants are not prepared to pay even half the annuity. They do not consider it good value. I mentioned here before that when they bring a man and his wife and a number of children and put them on to a farm on an estate, many of them have absolutely no idea of how to work that farm. Some of them have a hazy idea of how to work the farms they left and in a very short time they realise that what they were told—and some of them came to me and told me this—that there was plenty of employment available in the area for themselves and their families, is not correct. When they arrive they find that the only employment available is the employment held by the local people and their children. Either their children must emigrate, and sometimes the parents, or the local people must emigrate.
I do not think this is the purpose for which the Land Commission were set up. They are not doing the job they were set up to do. I want to say here and now that the Land Commission must change their policies. They must ensure that people who live within three, four or five miles of an estate that is being divided are considered. It will be found in most cases that they will turn out to be excellent farmers. They know the area. They know the land. They have worked on land. It is very important that people working in agriculture should know the type of land they are working, the type of crops that will grow well on it, where the best market is for their produce and should have all the other knowledge which cannot be given to migrants with the farms.
It is terribly unfair for the Land Commission to start what is, in fact, a civil war between the migrants and the people of the locality. We have now reached the stage where in some areas —and I should like the Minister to comment on this if he thinks I am telling an untruth—land cannot be set because the local people picket the area and picket the auction and say : "This cannot be done." They offer a price which is not acceptable and in some cases the land is allowed lie fallow for 12 months.
In quite a number of cases the Department have been very reasonable and when approaches were made in the proper way they did a deal with the local people and let the land to them. Apparently the position has hardened now and either they take it from the local auctioneer or they do not take it at all. If the local auctioneer is unable to get a bid which suits the Land Commission the land must just lie there. I wonder who the Department of Lands consider they are serving by this sort of attitude. I do not know who decided this. I should very much like to know whether this was a decision by the Minister or the Commissioners or the senior officials of the Department. Who decided that this should be the position?
I honestly believe that the country would be much better off if there were much more co-operation and if, for instance, before a farm was divided the Commissioners got people together instead of saying: "This is your bit. Sign for that." If they do not want to sign for it that is just too bad. I know one man who got a nice little farm on top of a hill. It was cut short a couple of perches from the only river in the area and he was left without water while his neighbour had more water than he wanted. Obviously, somebody looked at the map and decided that was the right thing to do, that he was getting a certain number of acres and that was the way he should get them. In other cases people have been cut off from roads which they could have used. Recently a man told me he got a farm which ran within a couple of perches of a ditch. He said he could fence the ditch himself for £2 10s but the Land Commission decided to give him some land out from the ditch and they had to fence the lot, and God knows what it cost.
There is not enough co-operation between the Land Commission and the applicants for land. The Land Commission must make up their minds that the people in the areas where land is being divided have rights, like everybody else, and that when it comes to the division of land people who live within striking distance of it, people who can use it, are considered and are given portions of land. If they do not use it properly it can be taken from them. That is an easy thing to do. The idea of refusing to give it to them because they are over a set distance away is pure codology.
Over the past 12 or 18 months or two years, there has been quite an uproar particularly from a group who call themselves the National Land League. Many people would like to criticise them and treat them as if they were like the illegal organisations who go around with guns, holding up people, or threatening to shoot them, or robbing banks. They are not. They are a normal decent group of people who claim that they have rights. As long as they stay within the law, as I believe they do, they are entitled to do what they are doing. They picketed a farm which somebody wanted to divide to build houses for migrants. I should like to ask the Minister what he would do if he had a business in his own town and he found that because of the action of a Government body he would be left without the use of that business. I think he would be very angry. These people I am talking about are very angry. The fact that they have got the support of most of the people in the area, including the clergy, proves that their cause is just.
As of now the Land Commission should attempt to make arrangements with the local organisations who have been agitating for land division, many of whom, as a result of their agitation, had farms taken over only to find they were given to people who do not belong to the area at all. The Land Commission have got to make their peace with these people. They are reasonable people. I have proved that it can be done and I think the officials will agree that this is so. The idea must be scrapped that locals must be beside the farms before they can be considered, whereas people from hundreds of miles away can be considered before them. If the Land Commission do that they will find, in a short time, that there will be none of this ill feeling and people looking for land will get what they are entitled to.