I am asking the Committee now to vote the balance of this Supplementary Estimate. The Estimate is quite simple. The nett amount asked for is £194,370, and I should explain that this amount with a little more has already been granted by the Dáil. This supplementary estimate now is merely a book-keeping matter, and is due to the fact that certain Acts amalgamated the Congested Districts Board with the Land Commission, and have placed the cost of the services of the Congested Districts Board on the Land Commission estimates. The gross estimate was £279,965, made up as follows:— £195,268 is for the former Congested Districts Board service, and is in respect of the period from August up to date, or rather up to the 31st March, August being the date on which the Land Commission Act passed, and on which the Congested Districts Board was amalgamated with the Land Commission. £81,167 consists of moneys that used to be paid on the Ireland Development Grant Vote. That is now also under Section 16 of the Land Act of 1923, transferred to the Land Commission Vote, and £3,530 is the supplementary estimate required by the Land Commission in view of the additional work. There is, however, a saving on several sub-heads of the Land Commission Vote of £40,000, so that in the result I am not asking now for more than was already granted by the Dáil for the Land Commission and the Congested Districts Board. In fact, the nett result will be a saving on both of £66,547. As I explained, £81,867 is the amount formally voted on the Ireland Development Grant Vote. There would be a saving from the Congested Districts Board Grant of £179,750, that is, a total saving of £260,917. As against that, I am asking for a supplementary estimate of £194,370, leaving a nett saving of £66,547. That, as I say, is really a book-keeping estimate, and is for the purpose of placing the Congested Districts Board on the Vote.
COMMITTEE ON FINANCE. - SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE (LAND COMMISSION).
|
Go ndeontar suim ná raghaidh thar £94,370 chun iomlánú do dhéanamh ar an suim Bhreise is gá chun íoctha an Mhuirir a bheidh le n'íoc i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh lá de Mhárta, 1924, ar son tuarastail agus costaisí Oifig Choimisiún Talmhan na hEireann (44 & 45 Vict., c. 49, s. 46, agus c. 71, s. 4; 48 & 49 Vict., c. 73, ss. 17, 18 agus 20; 53 & 54 Vict., c. 49, s. 2; 54 & 55 Vict., c. 48; 3 Edw. VII., c. 37; 7 Edw. VII., c. 38, agus c. 56; 9 Edw. VII., c. 42; 10 & 11 Geo. V., c. 67; An tAcht Dlí Thalmhan (Coimisiún), 1923, agus an tAcht Talmhan, 1923), agus ar son tuarastail agus costaisí Roinn Socruithe na Talmhan. |
That a sum not exceeding £94,370 be granted to complete the Supplementary sum to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1924, for the salaries and expenses of the Office of the Irish Land Commission (44 & 45 Vict., c. 49, s. 46, and c. 71, s. 4; 48 & 49 Vict., c. 73, ss. 17, 18 and 20; 53 and 54 Vict., c. 49, s. 2; 54 & 55 Vict., c. 48; 3 Edw. VII., c. 37; 7 Edw. VII., c. 38, and c. 56; 9 Edw. VII., c. 42; 10 & 11 Geo. V., c. 67; the Land Law (Commission) Act, 1923, and the Land Act, 1923), and the salaries and expenses of the Land Settlement Department—(Minister for Finance). |
The Minister has given a very lucid explanation, but he has not explained the estimate which is upon the paper. He did not explain the total vote or estimate of the Congested Districts Board for 1923-24, nor did he explain why these details, salaries, wages, and allowances did not appear in the normal annual estimate. The point I want to make now is that in the past the Congested Districts Board was a very much cheaper service all round per head than the Land Commission. This invaluable return of the Minister for Finance of the staffs in Government Departments shows that in 1914 the Land Commission cost £211 for each man serving, while the Congested Districts Board only cost £101 per head—less than half. In 1922 the Land Commission cost £374 per head, but the Congested Districts Board only cost £200—again nearly half. Now, I hope the result of amalgamating the Congested Districts Board and the Land Commission is not going to lead to a general increase in the Vote. The present figure shows that they are approximately betwixt and between the figures of the Land Commission and the old Congested Districts Board—that is, £278. I hope that in dealing with the salaries of these transferred officials the Minister will not elevate the officials of the Congested Districts Board to the level of those of the Land Commission scale, but that he will keep them on a lower basis.
Mr. O'CONNELL
On this Estimate, there are one or two points I wish to bring to the attention of the Minister. The Vote is for the Congested Districts Board, or what was formerly the Congested Districts Board.
Mr. HOGAN
The Land Commission.
Mr. O'CONNELL
That is to say, the Congested Districts Board is merged in the Land Commission. I want to draw attention to the fact that some time ago the practical reclamation work which was done by the Congested Districts Board over a large area in the West was dropped, in a great many places, and I would like to point out to the Minister that there is a very great necessity indeed to get ahead with this work as soon as it is possible to do so. Owing to the partial failure of the potato crop over a great area of the West, great hardship exists there, and if it were possible to re-start this work which was done by the Congested Districts Board in the past, it would be a great benefit to the people concerned. Of course, it would be doing work in the way of the reclamation of land and of road-making and all that kind of thing, which is quite necessary to be done, and it would prove of great benefit to the lands affected. I trust that the Minister will look into this matter at once, and that as soon as possible he will get this work going again. There is another matter which, I take it, arises on this Vote. and it is in connection with the putting into operation of the provisions of the Land Act of 1923. During the past two or three years there was a great agitation in many districts, especially in the West, regarding land that should have been bought up and divided. The people were told to wait patiently for the Land Act, and they waited patiently, comparatively speaking, for the Land Act, but the provisions of the Land Act are not being put into operation as far as we can see, in any case. At least, it seems that provision is working very slightly, and the consequent result is that people are becoming more and more impatient, and more and more anxious as to when these lands will be divided up. This feeling is always most evident in the spring-time, as the Minister himself knows. It would ease the minds, considerably, of these poor people who have been looking forward anxiously to a division of these lands if the Minister were in a position to make a statement as to his immediate intentions. Another thing is happening, and it is that people are coming in and buying up land, that is private people coming in and buying up some of these untenanted tracts of land over the heads of the uneconomic holders in the district who are expected to get them. This is causing very great anxiety also amongst these small uneconomic holders. It would ease the situation considerably if the Minister was in a position to make a statement as to the Government's intentions on the matter.
This debate was adjourned on the last occasion chiefly to the fact that the Minister was absent owing to illness, and it was thought desirable that a vote should not be taken until the Minister was in a position to come to the Dáil, and as I understood then, to make some general statement with regard to the operations of the Land Act. The Minister himself must be aware, as no doubt every Deputy is, from the communications he receives in connection with the operation of the Act, that there is a good deal of suspicion and a certain amount of panic in the country with regard to what is being done, or what has been done. I understand—perhaps I am wrong in saying it—that the progress has been much greater than the Minister anticipated when he made his last statement to the Dáil. However, I think it is due to the Dáil, before it votes away a large sum of money, that we ought to hear from the Minister a full statement in connection with the operation of the Act. Another matter I want to draw attention to is the question of the position of officials of the old Congested Districts Board, now under the Land Commission. I understood from the Minister for Finance on the last occasion that it was not the fault of his department. The Minister for Finance, if I understood him rightly, said that it was due more to the Minister for Agriculture not being satisfied or not having come to some decision with regard to the personnel, or with regard to those who were to receive the benefit of whatever recommendations were agreed upon. I would like the Minister for Agriculture to give the Dáil some information as to what is the position on that particular matter.
I would like to take advantage of this opportunity to ask the Minister for Agriculture to make a statement on certain matters in regard to the Land Act of 1923. As far as my knowledge of the Act and of its working is concerned, I am of opinion that in general it is giving satisfaction, that it will perform a very useful service, and that it will do what was promised, that is the eventual wiping out of landlordism in Ireland. But there are some points in connection with the Act that are not giving satisfaction. I would refer the Minister particularly to the matter of compounded arrears of rent. At the time the Bill was going through the Dáil I understand Deputies on the Farmers' Benches laid emphasis on the matter of compounded arrears, and pointed out to the Minister that he would find it an extremely difficult matter to collect the amount of arrears. I find in going up and down the country that there is a great grievance in this regard, and I think the Minister will find that it will be well-nigh impossible for the Land Commission to collect in cash the balance of the arrears. The reason for this should be obvious to him. He knows quite well the condition of agriculture in Ireland at present. He has frequently stated that he is aware of these conditions, and a great number of the farmers are not in a position to pay this balance of compound arrears of rent. As the Act stands the Appointed Day cannot be fixed, or the land cannot be vested in these tenants, till the balance of the compounded arrears is paid. I understand by far the greater number of tenants have paid one year's arrears. That means in some cases there are two years' arrears still due, of which they are liable for one and a half years' arrears in cash, and simultaneously with this they are liable for their usual payment in lieu of rent. In the conditions which exist, and taking into account the time through which agriculture has passed, I can assure the Minister that it will be a physical or a financial impossibility for the greater number of these tenants to pay the balance of the compounded arrears, and, therefore, he will find that the Appointed Day will have to be pushed back to an unreasonable date. I would suggest to him that there might be some method of getting over this, and that by the introduction of a simple amending Bill he might, by means of adding to the purchase money the amount of the arrears, make it more acceptable to the tenants, and therefore complete the sales in a shorter time. Of course, on behalf of the tenants, I would be still better pleased if he could see his way to wipe out the balance of the arrears, but considering that the question of the arrears is already involved in the Act, and that certain obligations have been incurred, I do not suppose it is reasonable to ask him to do so. But I do think it is reasonable to ask him to add the balance of the compounded arrears to the capital sum, and by increasing the annuity by a small amount make it possible to complete the sale of the land within a reasonable time.
There is another matter to which I would like to call the Minister's attention, and which, I am aware, has frequently been called to his attention in the past two or three months. That is the decision of certain tenants, or certain holders of land who hold on long leases or on fee farm grants. I believe that there is a great deal of displeasure as to the working of the Act in this regard, and that a great many of these tenants who, to all intents and purposes, are ordinary agricultural tenants, have been excluded from the provisions of the Act, have been obliged to pay the full arrears of rent, and cannot purchase their land in the ordinary course. I am aware that a great many of these occupiers of land are nothing more than ordinary agricultural tenants, and they should not be segregated or put into a different class from those who hold as judicial and non-judicial tenants. I think it would be quite possible in an amending Act to introduce a clause which would define the holders of land under such a title so as to place them in a position whereby they can purchase their land under the ordinary provisions of the Act.
In regard to the division of land and the giving of land to uneconomic holders and evicted tenants, a good deal or dissatisfaction is expressed in regard to certain things that are happening. It is well known that there is an organisation, that is, the political organisation of the present Government, the members of which are making use of this part of the Land Act to increase the membership of that organisation. I have had many tenants coming to me to say that they have been approached and told that if they came forward and joined the Cumann na nGaedheal they would have first claim on any land to be divided. I say that that is very unfair to the other political parties and particularly to the Farmers' Party.
I should not like to interrupt Deputy Heffernan, but an Estimate is not the proper place to ask a Minister to bring in Bills to amend Acts already passed. The Minister for Agriculture can only be asked questions as to how he is administering this money under the existing law.
I am very much obliged.
But I will allow him to go on, as I know it is very important.
I have said all I had to say.
I would like to ask the Minister one question, and that is, if he would, in his answers to the questions that have already been put, and in dealing with this Vote, explain exactly what amount of money was taken over from the Congested Districts Board to the United Land Commission, the old Land Commission and the Congested Districts Board, and the use that is being made of that money; whether it is still being allocated to these districts that sometime were under the administration of the Congested Districts Board, or whether the moneys are being pooled and equitably distributable throughout the entire territory of the country under the administration of the new Land Commission.
I will answer Deputy Figgis's question first. The funds, as apart from grants, of the Congested Districts Board have been paid to the Land Commission to be dealt with by the Land Commission under the authority and in accordance with regulations to be made by the Ministry of Finance, as set out, I believe, in Section 9 of the Land Commission Act, 1923.
My question was rather whether in those regulations any effort would be made to keep these funds for districts that used to be under the old Congested Districts Board.
Mr. HOGAN
As far as I am concerned, the question is one of getting adequate funds for the purposes of the Acts, and for these districts. I am not going to fight with the Ministry of Finance. I am not going to ask them to put on deposit receipt the funds of the Congested Districts Board, and earmark them for me so long as I get all the funds I want. I do not think that would be business. Deputy Cooper asks why this Vote was not taken last March, and why we inserted merely the total Vote in the Land Commission Estimates. The Bill amalgamating the Congested Districts Board and the Land Commission was introduced only last August, and I had not in my mind a scheme formulated in detail. I was not in a position at that date, and I obviously would not have been in a position, to include in the Estimates a vote for the new Congested Districts Board until I had the scheme thought out in all its details. I was not in that position last March, and it was not actually until August that the Land Commission Act, which amalgamated the Land Commission and the Congested Districts Board, was introduced. With regard to the salaries, I feel inclined to leave the matter between Deputy Cooper and Deputy Davin. They cancel out on that question. However, the answer to the question which Deputy Cooper asked is as follows:— A considerable percentage of the clerks of the Congested Districts Board were clerks who passed a special examination, not quite the Civil Service Examination, and they did not get the same salary. That is all it comes to, but as to the effect of amalgamating the Land Commission and the Congested Districts Board I have no doubt that, without prejudicing the question as to the amount of money that should be spent on the reclamation and division of land, and all that, that the administration of the joint body will be far less expensive than the administration separately had been.
I agree with Deputy O'Connell that it is essential to keep the reclamation work of the Congested Districts Board going on. The Board did give a lot of relief in congested districts by constantly providing work, and I agree that it is not in times like this we should start to cut away that source of employment. The Ministry of Finance have agreed that an additional grant of £19,000—for, I would point out, only this month, as the financial year ends this month—shall be made available to the Land Commission immediately the Land Commission is in a position to start the work. They are actually starting work in Connemara, Mayo and Donegal, where they propose to spend this money. We can argue the question of further moneys on next year's Estimates, which will be introduced immediately. I daresay I have permission to deal with some questions not perhaps quite relevant to the Estimates, that have been raised and discussed with regard to the operation of the Land Act. Deputies should remember that the Act was passed last August and was, so to speak, handed to the Land Commission to administer in September. The Land Commission were under the necessity of setting up what amounted to a land agent's office for every tenant left unpurchased in Ireland. They had to settle the exact rent of at least 100,000 tenants and they had to do so by correspondence. Anybody who knows anything about landlords and tenants will have some idea of the magnitude of that task. The procedure they adopted was quite simple. They wrote to every landlord in Ireland left unpurchased and they said, "Return a list of all your tenants and their rents, and say whether they are judicial or non-judicial, and if judicial say whether they are first, second or third." The landlords, of course, did what the tenants would do in the same circumstances. They wrote in, with a few honourable exceptions, and they returned the old rents. I assume most Deputies are aware that at least 50 per cent. of the tenants in Ireland hold their tenancies under rents which do not appear exactly on the face of the receipts. The commonest form of receipt would be "Received from So-and-so the sum of £20," and then in the corner of the receipt, "Abatement 5s.," or £5, or whatever it might be. Deputies will remember that point was raised when the Land Act was going through, and the decision which was come to and embodied in the Act that where an abatement amounted to an agreement for a new rent that a 25 per cent. reduction would be made not from the old rent, but from the abated rent. Needless to say, all the landlords returned practically the full rents. We expected that would occur. We then sent out a Receiving Order to tenants asking for one year's compounded arrears of rent, knowing that the tenant would pay the rent or ignore the letter, or write back and say, "That is not my real rent at all."
That happened in at least 40 per cent. of the cases, and at least 40 per cent. of these cases we had to settle in correspondence between the landlord and tenant as to what the real rent was. In a great many cases it was impossible to tell that without listing a case before the Judicial Commissioner. That work, now practically done, was so vast that the Land Commissioners, and practically every member of the Land Commission Staff, have been working on overtime since the Act passed, and most of the senior officers of the Land Commission have been working up to six or seven o'clock in the evening, but, as I have said, that work is practically now done. In addition the Land Commission had to deal with five or six million pounds worth of pending sales. They are being dealt with by the Land Commission far more expeditiously than they were dealt with before the Land Act of 1923 was passed. That is shown by taking the value of the sales last year and years before and comparing them with this year's. In addition they had to take over all the estates of the Congested Districts Board. They had to discuss the relevant questions with the law society, to prepare all the regulations, and get them out. Practically all that work has been done. Undoubtedly, personally I am under an obligation to the Land Commission for the expeditious way they have done that work. I could not be better served than I have been by the officers of the Land Commission in this, and I cannot see any Department doing better. Any Deputy who has an idea of the difficulties of settling the one hundred thousand tenants and their landlords by correspondence unless he is a little more innocent than the heathen Chinee, will realise that it is a tremendous task to accomplish in five months. The Land Commission are now getting the necessary extra staff and will be enabled to get on with the real work, that is to say, the acquisition and division of land and do it practically three times as quickly as they have been doing it during the last four months. Already 100 estates have been listed. Under the regulations which have been published, two months is the time within which anybody may object to the acquisition of an estate. We have to wait two months before actually vesting these estates. We are not buying untenanted land except where voluntarily offered. The position the Land Commission will adopt is, we propose to deal with tenancies first, first things first. We have already give 25 per cent. reduction and we think it right to give a 35 per cent. reduction to existing tenants as soon as possible, but we will not be in a position to buy untenanted land on any scale until we have dealt with tenants in so far as to give them their 35 per cent. reduction. Anybody who considers the question for a moment will see that it is right.
There is no occasion to be going ahead with untenanted land before the hundred thousand tenants have got the 35 per cent. reduction. We will endeavour to deal first with tenanted lands in order to give them that reduction. It will be six or seven months before we can begin to buy untenanted land on any large scale. It will then be dealt with on a large scale. We passed the Land Act of 1923 for the purpose of relieving congestion. The powers under the other Acts were not adequate for that purpose, because you generally had congestion where you had not land. We took power to take any land for the relief of congestion. We will have to make a sort of survey of untenanted land all over the country, and we cannot begin to deal with landless men, or give them land until we are satisfied that we are keeping enough land for the congests, who have the first claim. We did not pass the Act to perpetuate congestion. Deputy O'Connell said that in spring a young man's fancy turns to thoughts of land. and he asked me what my intentions were.
Mr. O'CONNELL
This is leap year.
Mr. HOGAN
I hope he is satisfied that my intentions are honourable. Now, with regard to that question, which I answered about fifty thousand times, vendors selling their lands, tenants and other well-meaning people seem to be under the impression that we should rush about the country and wherever anyone was selling land the Land Commission should go down and buy it. If a clause were put into the Act, to effect that, nobody could sell land without the permission of the Land Commission. That would be simply serving notice on any vendor whether he be a farmer, a fee farm grantee, a landlord, or any other representative of any class of the community, saying that the Land Commission might come in and take that land, and that he was not to sell it. What would be the effect of that? We all know that the Land Commission price is not the market price. If such a clause, preventing vendors from selling land, was inserted in any Bill it would mean that land would fall in value either a half or three-quarters, certainly by a very considerable amount straight away, and the difficulty of the ordinary farmer getting advances from the banks would be increased ten-fold. No one suggested when the Land Bill was going through that we should insert a simple clause preventing anybody from selling his land. It would have the gravest possible effect.
I do not understand how anybody who knows anything of the agricultural position would advocate it, especially in view of the fact that there is absolutely no occasion for it. We have still power to acquire land compulsorily even though it is owned by "B" and not by "A," and it makes no difference to say if we want a tract of land that it was sold and purchased a month ago. We have such powers and can exercise them if necessary. With regard to fee-farm grants, I think we have all heard that song before. The first thing I would advise fee-farm grantees to do is to say as little as possible, because we have power to acquire their land compulsorily for the relief of congestion, and if they have the misfortune to live in congested districts their lands vest automatically in the Land Commission.
I wonder is the Minister aware that some of them are actually congests themselves? They are not all owners of 500 acres.
Mr. HOGAN
And there are some landlords actually congests in the sense mentioned by Deputy Heffernan. I often ask people what is the difference between a landlord and a tenant? Is it that one may eat his dinner at 7 o'clock and the other in the middle of the day? In legislation we cannot go into the colour of a man's hair. We legislate with reference to land tenures. People cannot have it both ways. We cannot get up in the Dáil and advocate what are not exactly conservative amendments to Land Bills and then after wards people wake up in a terrible state of agony and realise that they are landlords for the purpose of the Act. I do not care how small a grantee is. If he is a fee-farm grantee his land will vest automatically in the congested districts, but we might give it back to him if he keeps quiet. I realise that there are a number of fee-farm grantees whom Deputy Heffernan would describe as farmers, but we have met the equities of the case. We have enabled these fee-farm grantees to go before the Judicial Commissioner and have their rents redeemed, and we are prepared to give them advances for the redemption of rents. If we enable them to purchase we would be in the extraordinary position that half of the people whom Deputy Heffernan classes as landlords would be purchasing under the Act. Half of the landlords own lands under fee-farm grants. They have just one grievance, namely, that they do not get the benefits of the arrears clauses. A number of fee-farm grantees hold land at 5s., 6s., and upwards.
And at £2.
Mr. HOGAN
Some, perhaps, but we have to legislate for the whole class and we have met all the equities of the case by enabling them to go in and redeem rents where the Land Commission consent. The Land Commission may at any moment change their mind and change it in favour of the congests.
Is the Minister aware that some of them were forced to take land under such grants in order that they might not be able to take advantage of fixing fair rents under the previous Land Acts?
Mr. HOGAN
I dare say, and when certain landlords went to see the Duke of Leinster and asked for a certain amount of land they preferred to get it in fee-simple, but he preferred to give it in fee farm rent and he gave it to them just for the honour and glory of being a landlord. Fee farm grantees are making a lot of pother about this matter. It is open to every single one of them, where we do not want land, to go in and redeem their rents and they will get advances. That meets all the equities of their case. I have been asked the question as to why the C.D.B. re-organisation has not gone through already. The answer is simple. I have been approached by all sorts and conditions of people for the last two months in connection with the re-organisation scheme of the C.D.B. What I should have told T.D's and others was that it is wrong for Civil Servants to approach T.D's on matters of that sort. I told them, however, that I was willing to hear any further representations which the C.D.B. clerks wished to make, before I took the final step of publishing the scheme of re-organisation which they know of. It may be due to a misunderstanding, but I waited three weeks to hear from them.
On a point of information, would the Minister be surprised to know that two applications for an interview with himself have been sent in and that there was no reply?
Mr. HOGAN
Yes, I know that two were sent in, one on Friday and one on Saturday, but in view of this debate I deferred replying to them. That is the reason. Before I got those applications, I conveyed word to the C.D.B. clerks through the Secretary of the Land Commission, that I was ready to see them. Then I got applications to see them following the interviews with T.D's. and other people. It would have saved me a considerable amount of worry if I got this scheme through and published it. I propose, after this debate, to see the C.D.B. clerks during the week. I have got one document from them assuming that the delay was because I was going into the scheme, and also expressing the hope that something good would come out of it. They cannot have it both ways.
I would not have raised the matter here if I were aware of that. I am informed that a letter was sent six weeks ago and that no reply was made.
Mr. HOGAN
I informed deputies three weeks ago that I was ready to see them. It was after that that I got the application for the two appointments. I deferred seeing them in order to hear what was to be said on this question here. They do lose something —very little—by the delay in reorganisation. Deputies, however, will have to remember that when the C.D.B. clerks enter their new grades, they will get all arrears as from the date of amalgamation, and the only thing they lose by the delay is whatever is lost by getting all their arrears at once, instead of gradually over periods as from July last.
Mr. O'CONNELL
Did I understand the Minister to say that he considered it wrong for civil servants to approach T.D's to air any grievances they may have?
Mr. HOGAN
I think it wrong for civil servants to ask T.D's to approach a Minister for an interview with regard to status, promotion, and anything like that. I think the proper course is to send a formal application in a formal way.
Mr. O'CONNELL
You mean approaching T.D's to approach a Minister privately?
Mr. HOGAN
What do you mean by "privately?"
Mr. O'CONNELL
Does the Minister consider it wrong for civil servants to ask T.D's to ventilate in the Dáil any grievance that a civil servant, or a body of civil servants may have?
Mr. HOGAN
That is not the question.
Mr. O'CONNELL
That is the question I asked.
Mr. HOGAN
That question does not arise. I could not walk through the lobby without various T.D's approaching me.
Mr. O'CONNELL
I asked the Minister what he meant. He has now said what he means.
Will the Minister tell us how often he walked through the lobby in the last three weeks?
The Minister has omitted the matter of compounded arrears. Would he make a short statement on that?
Mr. HOGAN
With regard to compounded arrears I do not anticipate there are any such difficulties as Deputy Heffernan fears. The first year's compounded arrears have been paid. Only a small minority of existing tenants owe the second year. I do not anticipate any difficulties in the question.
Would the Minister make inquiries from the Land Commission as to whether any application previous to last Friday's was sent in for an interview with him? I informed them that the proper thing to do was to see the Minister, but the C.D.B. clerks informed me that they made application but could not get to see the Minister. If the Minister were prepared to receive the deputation I would not have raised the matter here.
Mr. HOGAN
There may have been a misunderstanding. This question has been on the tapis for six months. I refused to receive some deputations. Over six weeks ago I said that I was ready to receive a deputation. I waited and actually informed the Secretary of the Land Commission that I was waiting for a deputation from the C.D.B. I asked him to convey that message.
It was not done.
Mr. HOGAN
I beg your pardon, it was. I have letters in the office for the last week showing that it was.
The Minister said that a large number of landlords sent in rent returns. There is one point I would like to clear up. On certain estates which I know of in congested areas, when bills were sent out, the tenants paid on the rent sent in by the landlord which were the old rents. Clearly they paid too much. Will an adjustment be made, and will tenants get the refund of the old rent they have paid?
Mr. HOGAN
Tenants will get a refund of anything they are entitled to under the Act. There is a question of fact involved in that.
Will we take the report to-day?
Mr. HOGAN
Yes.