Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 24 Jul 1924

Vol. 8 No. 19

COMMITTEE ON FINANCE. - VOTE 47.—(IRISH LAND COMMISSION).

Motion made:

That a sum not exceeding £396,604 be granted to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1925, to pay the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Irish Land Commission (44 and 45 Vict., c. 49, s. 45, and c. 71, s. 4; 48 and 49 Vict., c. 73, s.s. 17 and 18 and 20; 53 and 54 Vict., c. 49, s. 2; 54 and 55 Vict., c. 48; 3 Edw. 7, c. 37; 7 Edw. 7, c. 38 and c. 56, 9 Edw. 7, c. 42; the Land Law (Commission) Act, 1923, and the Land Act, 1923.)

MINISTER for LANDS and AGRICULTURE (Mr. Hogan)

Deputies will notice that there is an increase of £160,085 this year as against last year's estimate, but they must remember that the figures shown here for 1924-25 are the figures for the Land Commission plus the Congested Districts Board. The Congested Districts Board is, of course, absorbed in the Land Commission, and both are called the Land Commission now; and this estimate covers what used to be called the Congested Districts Board Services. The figures for 1923-24 are really the figures for the Land Commission for that period, and the figures for the Congested Districts Board for eight months of the year. The Land Law Commission Act which transferred the Congested Districts Board to the Land Commission was passed in July, and for the months April, May, June and July—four months—the Congested Districts Board was financed from its own funds, so that when you are comparing the estimates for those two years you must remember that you are comparing the Land Commission for a year and the Congested Districts Board for a year, as against the Land Commission for a year and the Congested Districts Board for eight months. That explains the increase to some extent.

It will be noticed that there is an increase of £57,490 under Sub-head A— Salaries, Wages and Allowances. Part of that increase, of course, is due to the fact that for the four months I have mentioned the Congested Districts Board staff were not on the estimates; and part of it is due to an item on page 166, £21,890 for extra inspection and survey staff. For the last month there have been employed 11 additional inspectors and 10 surveyors—it may be the other way about. Their salaries and travelling expenses, etc., will, I think, absorb half that amount—about £11,000 and the £21,890 is to cover a possible necessity for employing more inspectors and surveyors in the course of the year in the event of the work increasing to such an extent as to justify their employment.

There are also two items on the Estimates this year that have not appeared before either on the Land Commission Estimates or on the Congested Districts Board Estimates. One is Sub-head G, and the other Sub-head H. Sub-head G reads: "Contributions towards charge for excess stock, £160,000." I take it that most of the Deputies know what that charge is. It is a charge which we have, so to speak, inherited. It is a relic of the time when there used to be cash sales. An estate was bought for £10,000 cash. It was necessary to issue £11,000 worth of stock to find £10,000 cash; and the tenant purchasers were asked to pay interest on sinking fund of the £10,000, so that there was £1,000 over of stock, the interest on sinking fund of which the State had to find—interest on sinking fund of what was called excess stock and bonus stock under the 1903 Act. On that we are paying £160,000 this year. In former years that used to be on the Development Fund Vote. It now appears on the Land Commission Vote for the first time in its entirety. Last year £106,667 in respect of that appeared in the Land Commission Vote. Deputies will remember that there was a Supplementary Vote for the Land Commission and the Congested Districts Board.

Under Sub-head H there is an Estimate of £25,000 "Payment under Section 11 (7) of the Land Act, 1923." It is not very likely that very much of that will be required this year, but in the event of considerable sales being effected during the year, possibly £25,000 will be required as a contribution to price. These are the only comments I wish to make on the Estimates. I ask Deputies to remember, when they are comparing the Estimates for 1923-24 with the Estimates for 1924-25, that they are comparing, so far as the Congested Districts Board is concerned, an Estimate for eight months as regards the first-mentioned period, with an Estimate of one year in the other period. It may save a certain amount of time if I explain what the Land Commission has done since the beginning of the last financial year.

Mr. GOREY

I thought you were to deal with Sub-head I.

Mr. HOGAN

I did not intend to deal with Sub-head I. It speaks for itself. There is an increase of £40,793, as shown by the Estimate. In addition, there is a sum of £40,000 from the Unemployment Fund being spent on the Improvement of Estates.

To come to the work of the Land Commission for the last year, when the Land Commission and the Congested Districts Board were amalgamated there were £4,000,000 worth of pending sales in the Land Commission, and £5,000,000 worth of pending sales in the Congested Districts Board. The £5,000,000 worth of pending sales in the Congested Districts Board had been accumulating for years. One of the complaints against the Congested Districts Board was that they were accumulating estates and not dividing them. That was not their fault. They had not sufficient powers under the Act to acquire lands compulsorily to meet the peculiar and difficult needs of the congested districts. They bought lands and they kept them on hands with a view to acquiring more land, so as to have sufficient land to deal with the problems in that area. However, we have far more drastic powers under the Act of 1923. There is no occasion for the Land Commission to keep lands on hands. As I have said, there were £5,000,000 worth of pending sales under the Congested Districts Board, and there were £4,000,000 in the Land Commission.

The Land Commission and the Congested Districts Board amalgamated, and now there are £2,000,000 worth of sales, that is to say half the Land Commission sales are being dealt with still, and in addition out of 21,000 acres of untenanted arable land which the Congested Districts Board had in their possession when the amalgamation took place, 11,000 acres has been divided, and the balance will be divided before the end of this year, so that all that untenanted arable land will be divided before next Spring and in time for next year's sowings. That 21,000 acres represents the total area of arable land which the Board had at the time when the two services, the Land Commission and the Congested Districts Board, were amalgamated, that is to say last September. Within the year the Land Commission have divided half of it, and before the end of the year will have divided the balance. I may say that the average rate of division of land during the year 1922 was £2,000,000, so that in respect of the old sales sales of lands purchased under previous Acts, the Land Commission in the last year have dealt with £2,000,000 worth of the land which they had before the amalgamation, and at least half the arable land which the Congested Districts Board had in their possession at the time of the amalgamation. That is in addition to dealing with extraordinary arrears, and dealing with all the huge preliminary work that had to be done in connection with the Land Act of 1923.

With regard to the arrears of annuities problem, this is a sore subject, and I wish to put before the Deputies the position in regard to arrears of Land Commission annuities. In 1922-23 about £1,000,000 worth of arrears of annuities began to become due. The total collection of annuities amounted to £2,900,000. The gale days are June and December, and in January, 1923, there would be about £800,000 worth of arrears, and that would be reduced down to £400,000 by the following May, that is, a month before the next gale. What did that show? It showed that the annuitants were trying to establish something in the nature of a hanging gale, by paying the December gale of annuity about a month before the next annuity was due. The same thing happened in regard to the June gale of annuity; arrears again showed up to £1,000,000, and began to fall gradually to £300,000 or £400,000, say, in November or October. Everybody knows that unless Land Commission annuities are paid, the money must be found from the Guarantee Fund. Everybody knows that the Land Commission annuities are the interest on the Sinking Fund of stock that was issued for the purchase of the lands. The draw on the Guarantee Fund takes place in the month of February in respect of the December gale. Any arrears in December carry on to the beginning of August, and any arrears in respect of June carry on to December, so that what was happening was this, in those months, February and August of each year, there was a draw of £500,000 or £600,000 on the Guarantee Fund, and a draw on the Agricultural Grant. The Agricultural Grant is the first item that has to bear the loss. What was the result? The result was that the rates on agricultural land were considerably higher than they should be, and that the men who were paying the arrears of annuities were paying an increased agricultural rate. You had people complaining about the increased rates and the size of the rates all over the country. It was inevitable that the rates should be much bigger if this tendency to increase the arrears was allowed to grow. We were faced with the problem either of collecting Land Commission annuities punctually or allowing the rate on agricultural land to be inflated to a far greater degree than it should be. There was no question of what we should do in the matter. There is not a farmers' organisation in the country that does not admit that the Land Commission annuities must be paid.

I will go further. There is not a responsible farmer in the country who does not admit that Land Commission annuities should be paid. But while these admissions are made, while no one makes a case that they should not be paid, nevertheless there was the problem that one-third of the annuities were going into arrears, and so far as about 40 per cent. of the annuitants were concerned, the receivable orders might as well not have been issued. In at least 40 per cent. of these cases they waited until they got the six days' notice to pay, and in some counties in at least 80 per cent. of cases the annuitants waited, wherever they paid at all, until they got the six days' notice to pay. So that these six-day notices which were used in normal times to remind three, or four, or five per cent. of annuitants who were in arrears that they had not paid their annuities were becoming in fact another receivable order, and it was practically evident that the expense— practically evident that the money— orders was money thrown away; that the six-day notices were taking the place for 50 per cent. of the annuitants of the receivable orders. In that state of affairs, and in view of the necessity of collecting these arrears of annuities promptly, which everybody admits should be paid, the Land Commission ceased issuing the notices, and in the month of January of this year they published in all the daily and provincial papers notices to the effect that they would not in future issue these notices, that the annuitants who were in arrear would be processed without the usual six-day notices. It is alleged that annuitants in some cases have been processed after they had paid their annuities. I have never got a single case authenticated where this has occurred, and I am anxious to get these cases. Deputy White raised it by asking a question some time ago. He asked was it a fact that a couple of hundred processes were issued in Donegal, and was it a fact that some of these processes were served on annuitants who had already paid. What are the facts? The facts are that a couple of hundred processes were issued in Donegal against people who were a year in arrear, and for whom the ratepayers of the County Donegal were paying. Only in five cases were processes served on tenants who had already paid their annuities, and in these five cases the annuities came in after the processes had been handed to the process-servers, and before service.

I know exactly how that sort of thing happens. The solicitor writes for the payment to the tenant-purchaser. He asks him to pay his annuity. He probably gets no reply. This annuity is a year in arrear. The tenant knows that it is due in the month of June or the month of December, as the case may be. He does not pay it. He does not pay the solicitor. He waits for two or three months, when the processes are issued and are in the hands of the process server. It is not absolutely unknown that the fact that the processes are in the hands of the process-server gets out, and he hops in and pays his annuity. As I say, in five instances in this particular case, which I have investigated carefully, out of the few hundred, where the annuities have been paid they were paid after the processes were handed to the process-server, and before he had succeeded in serving them. I would not make the slightest excuse if that were the case in the whole two hundred and not in the five instances, because I know how these things happen.

With regard to the work of the Land Commission in connection with the new Act there are about a hundred thousand tenants unpurchased, and for the purpose of collecting both the compounded arrears of rent and the payments in lieu of rent it was necessary to get the correct particulars of each of these and of their rents. For the purpose of vesting their holdings in the Land Commission it was necessary to get not only the name and address and the correct rent of each of these tenants, but also particulars as regards their holdings, the area, a map of each holding, whether the holding was judicial or non-judicial, and whether the rent was first, second or third term. That was all required for the purpose of fixing a price. That is to say, if you joined the two necessities, namely, the necessity for getting particulars for the collection of payment in lieu of rent, and the fixing of the price of each holding, it was necessary to get in respect of each tenant unpurchased his name and address, his exact rent to a penny, the map of his holding, his area, and whether his holding was judicial or non-judicial, first, second or third term. That is to say the Land Commission had to establish what was a land agent's office for every tenant left unpurchased, and had to get particulars not approximately correct, but particulars with regard to each tenant's holding absolutely accurately.

Otherwise any sale based on that figure could be afterwards upset by the Courts. They proceeded to do that by writing to each landlord asking him to return the rents of his tenants with these particulars. That was obviously the right course. There is about one landlord for every 20 tenants, and there would be about 4,500 landlords against 100,000 tenants. The landlords within a certain time returned these particulars, and in 40 per cent. of cases these particulars were found to be incorrect. They were materially incorrect in regard to the rents because as a rule the tenants did not get credit for abatements. You all know what abatements are. Abatements may not appear on the face of the receipt; they may appear on the fly-leaf or something like that; but you all know that in a great many cases the rent receipt does not show the exact rent. In any event, in 40 per cent. of cases the particulars were not accurate. That meant that the Land Commission had to interview every tenant or every landlord, or had to settle the question by correspondence. Possibly Deputies have some idea of the difficulty of settling a question of that sort. These questions had to be settled, and in over 2,000 cases they had to go before the Land Judge. For the last ten months Judge Wylie has tried about 2,000 cases which will rule, I suppose, a large number of others. That work has all been completed within about eight months, and in my opinion it was a very considerable feat for the Land Commission in all the circumstances, in view of the difficulty of dealing with people on a question like this by correspondence, and getting all these particulars accurately within a period of eight months. And remember all these particulars are necessary for the automatic working of the Land Act.

Deputies should also remember that the Land Act in a great many of its more important provisions works automatically once the basis is laid down, and this preliminary work is of primary importance in view of the fact that it is the basis on which any question in the course of the administration of the Act might be brought before the Judicial Commissioner. Any sale might be interfered with if the preliminary particulars were not accurately ascertained. All these preliminary particulars have been ascertained within the last eight months, and practically the first year's compounded arrears of rent have been collected with very little difficulty in the circumstances. The payment in lieu of rent is being collected, and between payment in lieu of rent, compounded arrears of rent, and between the annuity and interest in lieu of rent the Land Commission has collected £5,000,000 per annum. In addition to that the Land Commission have now inspected about 350,000 acres of untenanted land. After inspection and before the land can be acquired compulsorily a three months period must intervene. When the Land Commission decide that they intend to acquire a certain area of land they gazette it in the Official Gazette, and a period of three months intervenes between the date when this notice is inserted and the date when the lands are actually acquired. The same applies with regard to vesting a tenant's holding. Before any tenant's holding can be vested it must be three months gazetted, for the reason that a great many people may have a right to object to the vesting. It is quite possible that a tenant would not have a legal claim to the land, and there are other reasons of that sort.

To make a long story short, within the last year the Land Commission dealt with almost as much land, purchased under the 1903 Act and the 1909 Act, as the Land Commission in previous years when they had nothing else to administer but these Acts. That is to say, they dealt with £2,000,000 worth of pending sales as against an average of £2,500,000. In addition they have divided half the arable land which accumulated under the Congested Districts Board, which came over with the Congested Districts Board and which represented years of arrears and will have completed the division by the end of this year. In addition, they have reduced the abnormal arrears problem which developed during 1922 and 1923 to practically normal proportions. They have done practically all the preliminaries, the important difficult preliminary work in connection with the Land Act of 1923, and they have inspected at least 350,000 acres of untenanted land. They have done that with practically no additional staff. They have some additional officials on the outdoor staff, but it is only within the last two months that an additional outdoor staff has been employed and a further additional staff will be employed as they are required. It is often suggested that the land should be divided here and there without any general plan on the part of the Land Commission, and I just wish Deputies to get an idea of what that would mean. These figures will have to be taken as approximate. There are about 5,000,000 acres, available for the Land Commission under the new Act. That is a very generous figure, and that is taking as much land as they possibly could, in my opinion, take. There are 100,000 tenants. Most of these tenants are in the congested districts. Most of them live on very small, miserable holdings. They are the problem that was not solved in the past. They are the problem that was never faced in the past owing to the difficulties of solving the problem. Taking a line from the 1903 Act, it takes about 3,000,000 acres to deal with 100,000 tenants. I cannot give accurate figures, but this figure is a deduction. Taking a line from previous Acts, it took on an average about 3,000,000 acres to deal with 100,000 tenants.

It will take at least 3,000,000 acres to deal with the 100,000 tenants we have. Most of them live in Connaught, on the western seaboard, in Cavan, in all the counties where the congests are and most of them have small miserable holdings, smaller holdings than were dealt with under the 1903 Act, and, in my opinion, the amount of land you require will be nearer 4,000,000 acres. We have to make up our minds whether we will deal with the congests now regardless of the difficulties or the attraction of leaving them there and dealing with other classes, or whether we will set out to solve the biggest problem left in the country—the terrible poverty that you find in places like Mayo, Sligo and Donegal. I have no doubt myself that whatever the difficulties are that the Land Act of 1923 will have failed unless we deal with the problem that these counties present, and that any other policy in the way of giving land to the landless, no matter how attractive, at the expense of these congests, is unsound. If we carry on that policy to a successful conclusion it will mean that we will have to be under the necessity of migrating a very large number of small tenants from Connemara, Mayo, Donegal, Kerry and other counties which I need not mention and which are not included in what is rather technically known as the "congested areas." In addition, we will have to migrate—and this will be the more difficult problem—fairly large tenants with 100, 120, and up to 150 acres in order to make room for the congests in the holdings which they leave after them. There is no question about it, the larger tenant is the more suitable migrant. He is better educated, he knows his way about better, he knows conditions better and, as a rule, he will prefer to go because the large tenant with 120 to 140 acres surrounded by twenty or forty miserable congests has not got all the security of tenure he would desire, and it will be an advantage to him and to the congests to migrate him. The real danger will be in his reception in the other districts by the tenants, say, in the counties of Kilkenny, Tipperary, Meath or Dublin.

This problem cannot be solved unless every party co-operates. They must co-operate and resist the temptation of making cheap capital out of migration and out of getting land divided round their own districts. We have to face the thing now. We are at the parting of the ways. The preliminary work is being done, and we must make up our minds as to what our policy is going to be. I know the country well enough to know that it will be extremely difficult to carry out. There is no question as to the right policy, and that it cannot be done until Deputies remember that each in his own area must get up and say even the unpopular thing when they know it is the right thing.

Mr. WILSON

That is what we always did.

Mr. JOHNSON

Perhaps we would be on the other side of the House if we did not.

Mr. HOGAN

I would like to think so.

Mr. GOREY

With regard to the annuities the Minister finds great fault with the tenants for not meeting annuities up to date, and not coming in with the receivable orders and tendering them with an accompanying cheque. We heard the same thing the last time we were on this Vote. I would ask the Minister this: Is it not a fact that while the English were here in connection with the operation of this Act, that fourteen days' notice was always sent out?

Mr. HOGAN

It is.

Mr. GOREY

And after that, the solicitor's notice was sent out?

Mr. HOGAN

No.

Mr. GOREY

The notice stated that the annuity was to be paid on or before but not later than a certain day. That has been done away with. The average farmer of the country is not an accountant. He has not a clerical mind.

The result is that he forgets all about it and the next thing he has is something he does not want. The withdrawal of that notice to my mind has been the cause of considerable trouble. I know the sending out of these notices would mean expense but considering that it is a Government matter they could be sent out with no great expense, except the expense of printing the notice. Their not being sent out at present is the cause of considerable trouble. If the people got those notices there would be no excuse for them. As it is they get no notice and consequently trouble has arisen.

With regard to the operations of the 1923 Act, as the Minister has said, considerable difficulty has arisen. I do not think I am exaggerating when I put it this way that the landlords have not given a proper or honest return in 40 or 50 per cent. of the cases. Where-ever they have given an abatement for the past ten, twenty, or thirty years, they have when asked for a return ignored all mention of this abatement, and they return the full amount of the old rent. The provisions of the Act required that they should give a true return, otherwise they are subject to a penalty. All the cause of friction in the country at the moment has been caused by this question of their not giving a proper return. Case after case I have had to deal with and a number of them I had to bring to the notice of the Minister. I have had to deal with any amount of such cases where the landlord deliberately did not give a proper return. I should say that they sent the old rent in the hope that the tenant was fool enough not to notice what happened. In some cases the demand for arrears of rents was more than the tenant would have actually to pay if the Act had not been passed. In one case the nett arrears to which the tenant was entitled under this demand was only 25 per cent., whereas he was actually entitled to 30 and 35 per cent. In the demand made on him he was actually called on to pay more than he had been paying for the past thirty or thirty-five years. I believe that the landlords were deliberately doing the wrong thing and they are the cause of all the confusion we have had over these questions. I do not think the Minister has told us, or if he has, I do not remember his saying so, whether they have got in all those arrears of rents. He said he had got practically all now.

Mr. WILSON

One year's rent.

Mr. GOREY

What percentage of it?

Mr. HOGAN

£700,000 out of £800,000.

Mr. GOREY

That is very satisfactory.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

took the chair.

Mr. WHITE

I do not think it was fair of the Minister to steal all my thunder. I cannot close my eyes to the fact that I am up against a subtle and able solicitor, as well as a Minister for Lands and Agriculture. However, there are two or three matters that I wish to draw the attention of the Minister to. One is the flooding of lands on both sides of rivers, and the consequential blocking and obstructions of main drains flowing into those rivers. None of these lands is situated in Drainage Board areas. Unfortunately they are subject to these periodic floodings, and sometimes these floodings render them practically derelict. But the people have to pay the Land Commission annuities notwithstanding. In some instances the flooding was brought to the notice of the Land Commission. The reply was in the most courteous terms possible, and to the effect that they had no money or that no money was available for this purpose. I hold that property has its duties as well as its rights, and when land has become derelict and unproductive through flooding, the Land Commission is not entitled to annuities that the land is not able to produce. There is an estate down in my area known as the Young Estate, in the Innishowen Rural District. It was sold in 1906 under the 1903 Act, and the tenants are still paying interest in lieu of rent.

With regard to this question of taking proceedings and issuing processes for Land Commission annuities, payment in lieu of rent and compounded arrears, I would say that it has been, of course, open to a good deal of criticism. I do not get up here in the Dáil for the purpose of encouraging tenants not to pay their annuities. My object is to save them law costs, if it is at all possible. But I think myself that the Land Commission officials should treat these people with a little more sympathy and consideration than they are doing. I know of cases where processes were issued for rent that had been forwarded three weeks or a month previous to the issue of the processes. I know of a case where there were two sets of processes issued for one amount and communications were sent to the State Solicitor and he did not answer them.

The procedure seems to be that a list is sent from the Land Commission offices to the State Solicitor, and that from the time he receives that list, or from the time that list is sent out from the Land Commission to the State Solicitor, payments are remitted to the Land Commission and the money is sent on by bank drafts and post office orders. Those bank drafts and post office orders are received at the Land Commission office in Dublin. No communication seems to pass between the Land Commission and the State Solicitors advising the receipt of these monies, and the result is that many of these people are let in for costs for the recovery of annuities for which payments have already been made. The whole thing is that once this list of defaulters from the Land Commission gets into the grip of the State Solicitor, he must have costs whether payments are made or not.

Mr. HOGAN

Who is to pay them?

Mr. WHITE

The tenant has no right to pay law costs for proceedings taken against him for payments already made. I do not suppose for a moment that the Minister would advocate that. The Land Commission's methods of collecting annuities notwithstanding that they have a huge staff, does not appear to be as highly organised as would be expected from a great State Department. The Land Commission should be more reasonable in their methods. The past year has been one of the worst years we have had in this country since 1879. Under the present bad conditions which prevail, farmers have to pay high rates, annuities, payments in lieu of rent, and compounded arrears, and they have to pay this in November and also in May. That is a pretty big order inside one year for poor men who had practically no potatoes or oats last year. I would assert that some more consideration should be given to the condition of those unfortunate people before processes are sent out against them for the recovery of annuities. With regard to these matters of processes, I will read you this from the "Derry Journal."

Mr. DAVIN

It is outside the area.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

Do not read the "Derry Journal" to us.

Mr. WHITE

Well, this is a report of the Lifford Quarter Sessions, and the paper is dated 30/4/'24. Here is the extract:

Michael Bonner, Cooly, was the defendant in a Civil Bill at the suit of the Land Commission for a half-year's instalment of an annuity. Mr. John A. Hamilton, who appeared for the defendant, said the money had been actually paid five days before the process had been issued, and it would have been paid sooner had the defendant been able to obtain a receivable order in his own name from the Land Commission. It was ridiculous for the Land Commission to issue a process for money which had been paid, and it showed very unbusiness-like methods. They surely did not expect to get a decree for money which had been paid. Mr. McMenamin, for the Land Commission, said it was probable he had received instructions in the case before the money was received. The Land Commission then would not accept payment until the matter of costs was settled. Mr. Hamilton: If they did not accept payment, why did not they send us back our money? His Honor nilled the process.

Then take the case of John and Samuel Boggs, of Bree, Ballygorman. There are two sets of processes issued for one amount.

Mr. HEWAT

He must have been a pretty bad case.

Mr. WHITE

I hope I am not detaining the Dáil. I think this is a good entertainment. Take the case of John McLaughlin, of Carbodoey, Strathobridge, Carndonagh. Processes were issued on the 15th May. The money was sent from Carndonagh on the 5th May, 1924, that is ten days previously.

Mr. HOGAN

To whom?

Mr. WHITE

John Andrew MacLaughlin sent the money to the Land Commission. And ten days after the money was remitted by Post Office Order he is processed. We do not want to go into Euclid to prove that ten and five are fifteen. Now, here is a case that was handed to me the other evening, and it had reference to a man named James Connor, of Cashel, who sent a Post Office Order for £2 2s. 3d. from Carndonagh on the 14th May, 1924. He got the following acknowledgment on the 4th July:—"I beg to acknowledge receipt of your remittance for £2 2s. 3d. on account of the debt due in respect of above case. As Mr. W.T. McMenamin, State Solicitor, Ballybofey, has already been instructed to take proceedings for the recovery of this amount prior to its receipt by the Land Commission, you must now settle with him for his costs. The amount of your remittance has been credited to your account without prejudice to the recovery of costs.— John T. Drennan, Secretary."

Does not that look like manufacturing costs? I have several other cases here if you are desirous that I should proceed with them, but I believe myself that I have to a certain extent met the challenge that the Minister threw out. As I have already stated, I do not want, nor, I am sure, does any other Deputy, or reputable man in the country want, to start an agitation to prevent men from paying their annuities, but I should mention that these are only a few of the several cases that have happened down in my area, and I believe the same thing is happening in other areas. Other Deputies can speak for those. I do not want to encourage people who are not paying their rent, as I am as anxious that they should pay their annuities and interest in lieu of rent as anybody else, because I am a large ratepayer myself, and in the event of their falling into arrears I know what happens. But I would appeal to the Minister and to the officials of the Land Commission that they should be more considerate to the unfortunate people, especially in view of the circumstances of this year.

Mr. DAVIN

If the statement that was made here by the Minister this evening in regard to the necessity for collection of arrears of annuities could be made by the Minister, assisted by Deputy Gorey, to a general meeting of the farmers of the Free State area, I am sure every Deputy would agree that it would save many of us a good many communications and also receiving a good many deputations. They would not be necessary if farmers fully realised the import of the statement made by the Minister. The Minister has, in his detailed statement, given figures and facts which I presume will mean that Deputies will not have to ask the questions which have really been answered in his statement. With regard to Deputy White's complaint, which he has fairly well justified, it may be due to the fact that there is a border-line between Donegal and the Land Commission and that the delay involved is due to the fact that there is a hold-up somewhere or other between the point of forwarding and the point of receiving those communications. When that border-line disappears, through the activities of Deputy White and his colleagues in the North, the delay may not seem so great as he complains of to-night.

What I really rose to complain of to-night is a matter which I have already brought to the notice of the Minister and which I am even yet receiving a great number of communications about. Landlords are at present advertising for sale, either by private treaty or by public auction, lands that are likely to be acquired by the Land Commission under the Land Act of 1923. I do not say that there is any great cause for complaint in a case where land is being changed from one owner to another. But the trouble arises in many cases that have come under my notice, where Landowners have split up their land and have advertised it for sale and sold it in many cases by private treaty, the divisions into which it was split constituting small and uneconomic holdings. I say that should not be allowed to go on by the Land Commission if there is any method by which the Commission can prevent such a thing taking place. The Minister has referred to this matter before and answered questions in connection with it where questions have been asked. The Minister, in his statement, told us that inspections have taken place in regard to 350,000 out of a possible 5,000,000 acres likely to be acquired by the Land Commission. If landowners are to be allowed between now and the time the 5,000,000 acres are likely to be acquired, to split up their land in small uneconomic lots and sell it by private treaty or public auction, when such land is likely to be acquired, it will not alone create confusion and misunderstanding in the localities affected but it will cause considerable confusion to the Land Commission when at a later stage they come along to acquire these lands. In the cases that have come under my notice I know that this has caused a good deal of irritation locally and there is a feeling amongst the local uneconomic holders, which is justified to a great extent, that this land should be inspected, valued and an effort made to acquire it now before the auction takes place or the lands are handed over to some other person. I have brought this matter to the notice of the Minister for Agriculture and may I say that at all times and in all matters concerning questions of land, he is approachable and gives fair consideration to any claim put up. The only ground of dissatisfaction, I think, is that in cases where lands have been advertised by public auction or private treaty and split into small lots adequate steps have not been taken to counteract the activities of the landowners. In my opinion in these cases the landowners are trying to forestall the activities of the Land Commission. At present this matter presents a problem and creates confusion in the districts concerned. It will present a very serious problem at a later stage if the Land Commission come to acquire these lands.

If land is advertised for sale, especially land that has been split up into small uneconomic holdings—and this particularly applies in the constituency of Leix and Offaly, although I understand other constituencies are affected —I see no difficulty in the way of the Land Commission sending down Inspectors to value the land and make an offer to the owner. I realise that, if the landowner wishes to put an obstacle in the way of the Land Commission acquiring land compulsorily, it may take time to acquire it. Personally, if the Land Commission is not prepared to take some effective steps to deal with this particular situation, which is a serious and critical one in one of the counties in my constituency, I am prepared to take all the constitutional means at my disposal to prevent any other people from securing these lands. I would only do that as a last resort. But I would take steps, of a constitutional nature at any rate, to see that it would not be profitable for any people to come in and buy lands that I hope in the near future will be acquired by the Land Commission under the Land Act. I hope the Minister will make the position quite clear with regard to the attitude of his Department on that matter, particularly concerning landowners who split up large estates into uneconomic holdings which they know in time will be acquired by the Land Commission.

There is another question that I want to get some information upon. I am not quite sure if I understood the Minister rightly. That is why I press for a definite understanding. Is it the intention of the Ministry, in respect to this 5,000,000 acres which is to be acquired, to inspect and value all acquired lands before they proceed to divide the lands amongst the people in any area. That is a point that should be made quite clear. So far as Deputies representing rural areas are concerned, great difficulty is experienced by them when they receive a large number of communications in regard to the attitude of the Commission on this and other questions which they are unable to answer. If the Minister would make the position a little more clear in regard to that and other matters, it would relieve Deputies who are not in a position to reply right away to questions which they are asked without transferring these communications to the Land Commission.

With regard to what seems to be new appointments of inspectors, I would like to ask the Minister from what class these land inspectors have been recruited; what, if any, are the qualifications necessary for the appointments, and if any of these inspectors are sent to inspect or value land in the districts from which they come? I think it would be very undesirable that an inspector, say, from Leix should be sent down there to do this work. I would rather see a man from Donegal, Galway or somewhere else sent to the district. In that way one would expect that an inspector would be more impartial than he would be if sent to the district from which he came originally. At any rate, I would like to have some information as to the method of recruiting these fifty-two land inspectors who have been appointed this year.

Mr. HOGAN

Only twelve inspectors and eleven surveyors have been appointed. It may be the other way about—eleven inspectors and twelve surveyors—but, at any rate, only twenty-two have been appointed between inspectors and surveyors.

Mr. DAVIN

I am going by the estimates, page 166, which says thirty-four inspectors, five assistant inspectors, and thirteen re-sale valuers—that is fiftytwo. There were no such appointments last year. That is why I say there were fifty-two appointed this year. I merely want information as to the qualifications of the individuals and the intention of the Ministry as to the districts to which the inspectors will be sent.

There is another matter which has come under my notice. Inspectors have gone down to districts, and, for some reason unknown to me, and perhaps without the authority or without instructions from the Ministry, have called a meeting of the uneconomic holders and landless men within a three-mile radius. I think it is undesirable for inspectors or anyone appointed by the Commission to do that. There seems to be a foolish idea in the minds of people when an inspector arrives in a district to inspect land, that that land has already been acquired by the Commission. I think that inspectors should make inquiries of that kind in a more judicious manner than they have done in some parts of the constituency I represent. It creates a great deal of irritation locally if three or four people are left out while one hundred are sent for. There is no necessity for inspectors to call a meeting of the inhabitants of a particular parish in order to explain to them why he has arrived in the district, or his reasons for picking out this, that or the other man who may be entitled to land. In one particular area this has led to a revolution on a small scale. I am sure that is not the intention of the Minister. But some general direction might be given to inspectors in regard to matters of that kind. I hope the Minister will declare quite definitely and frankly the policy of his Department with regard to landowners who are selling their lands, either by auction or private treaty, with the intention, as far as I can see, of evading the terms of the Land Act.

Mr. CONLAN

With regard to the policy to be pursued in dealing with the division of land, as foreshadowed by the Minister, I feel sure that every Deputy will be glad to see the great problem of the congested areas in the west and north-west of Ireland dealt with and solved. At the same time, I would like to remind the Minister that there are congested districts in the Leinster counties. Anybody who travels through counties such as Meath, Westmeath, Kildare, etc., must know that here and there you run into a track of inferior land, bogland, and so on, and find that that tract is studded with the little houses of people who are living there under very miserable conditions, indeed. I know of one estate in County Kildare, surrounded by a rich district, in which there are 180 tenants with valuations of £5 and under. Before bringing migrants from distant places, I think that these people should be placed in possession of economic holdings. If that is not done, I am sure it will create a great deal of dissatisfaction, and the state of the country, to use a moderate term, will not improve. On the contrary, I think it will be making confusion worse confounded. I could refer to another estate—the Verschoyle Estate—in another part of the county, in which similar conditions prevail. Indeed, things there are worse, because the landlord has denied the tenants access even to the bogs, and they have to go without their fuel this year. I bring these points forward in order to show that the Minister ought to bear in mind that his first duty is to relieve congestion in a particular district before introducing migrants from distant counties.

Mr. SHAW

I know that the question of migratory tenants will be a very difficult and possibly a very controversial one, but I do not want any remarks I make to be taken either by the Minister or by anyone else as selfish. I know that it is a necessity for people in the West, and in other parts, who are very probably worse off than the people I represent to obtain land in other parts of the country. The suggestion I make is that where there are tracts of land under 400 acres, of which at least six persons are entitled to obtain a portion, and where only one person will be successful, such land should then be exempted. On the other hand, in the County Westmeath and County Longford I am aware of tracts of land where one person has got two or three thousand acres. I would like to see such lands divided amongst persons who may be described as migratory tenants from other localities. In those two counties there are thousands of small farmers with 8 or 10 acres of land who by working very hard are able to live and rear their families. I know what it would mean to such people to be able to get 8 or 10 acres in addition. I would appeal very strongly to the Minister to see that where there are tracts of land of 150, 200, 300 and possibly up to 400 acres they should be exempt, and that the land selected for transfer to migratory tenants should be the larger tracts.

Another suggestion that I would like to make, and one that I think would be of very considerable benefit to the community at large, is that, where possible, 30 or 40 acres of land should be secured in the vicinity of towns for use as a cow park. If that could be done it would enable poor people who are now unable to obtain milk, or to pay for it, to keep a cow. I strongly urge that some scheme of that kind should be devised and that land could be acquired for that purpose. At present thousands of people, and especially children, suffer from lack of milk. Nothing I think would be of more substantial benefit to the people than such a scheme. There is a want of that particularly nourishing food, milk, which many poor people are debarred from getting.

Mr. WILSON

I direct the attention of Deputies to sub-head (G). This is one of the items supposed to be spent for the development of agriculture. It is part of the £600,000 that was spoken of the other night and is the remains of an inheritance.

Mr. HOGAN

I desire to explain, in order to save the Deputy a certain amount of oratory, that this is not part of the £600,000. It has nothing good, bad or indifferent to do with the agricultural grant. It was never mixed up with the agricultural grant and comes from a totally different source.

Mr. WILSON

It is part of the £600,000 which we were told the other night was portion of the £1,000,000 spent on agriculture. I was directed to look at Vote 47, which includes the £600,000 and is an inheritance from past legislation. I want to ask the Minister why we should be saddled with £160,000 for excess stock? It is a debt which in all reason should be payable by those who issued this stock and should be placed in a contra-account against the British Exchequer, instead of against the vote for the development of agriculture in Ireland. Under the Land Acts previous to the Hogan Act the sinking fund would be invested at £2 15s. per cent. At the moment it is being invested at 5 per cent., where it is not used for further advances, and the rate of interest on that sinking fund is a couple of pounds more than the previous Acts provided for. I contend in respect of that sinking fund that there is more than sufficient to blot out the £160,000 for excess stock. The Minister can contradict that if he likes. I want to ask the Minister, after the Land Commission has dealt with two millions remaining —because of pending sales—there were four millions at the beginning of the year—are we finished with all the previous Land Acts, and will the sinking fund then be directed towards the annihilation of the old debt and this £160,000, which is an incubus on our backs every year?

As to arrears, it must be remembered that the Minister has stated the landlords in 40 per cent. of the cases returned wrong rents.

Mr. HOGAN

Incorrect, I think would be more like it.

Mr. WILSON

The Land Act was passed last year, and by reason of the landlords sending in incorrect accounts confusion arose. Up to recent months these accounts have not been rectified. The position of a tenant who had to pay a year's arrears—arrears due previous to May, 1923—can be understood. A half-year was due in May, 1924. That was payable under the pink order of the Land Commission. In view of all this confusion, is it not a great testimony to the honesty of the farmers that there is only one-eighth of the arrears outstanding at the moment? On the question of costs, I see that they have collected £1,100 in law costs from defaulting annuitants. The fact of not issuing that particular notice, which the Minister says would cost a lot of money, but which any merchant would issue for the collection of accounts—and he would be very glad if he could get in his accounts by sending out bills—means that £1,100 came from poor tenants by whom the money would otherwise be paid regularly every year. You cannot break a custom like that with impunity.

With regard to the question of migration, as far as I can gather the Minister is going to meet that question by migrating the larger farmers in the congested areas who have purchased under the Act of 1903 and previous Acts. Under the Land Act these men must be brought away from their present farms and put in better farms in Meath or Kildare or Wicklow or somewhere else. I contend that a great case was made by Deputy Conlan. Where in an area there are 180 tenants with a valuation of less than £5 it would be unjust to bring in men from another part of the country and leave these men where they are unprovided for. I quite agree that if 100,000 tenants were withdrawn from the Western seaboard they must be migrated and provided for, but they could get the land of those tenants in the West and these larger tenants in the West could be brought on to the ranches.

Mr. HOGAN

The 100,000 includes all tenants unpurchased.

Mr. WILSON

I understand it would take 3,000,000 acres to settle 100,000 congests.

Mr. HOGAN

Perhaps I had better explain. There are 100,000 tenants to be purchased at the present moment. They have all to purchase, and where they have uneconomic holdings, they have to get economic holdings.

Mr. WILSON

I dare say, but, judging by previous Land Acts, it has taken about 3,000,000 acres to deal with 100,000 tenant purchasers. It takes 30 acres to one tenant, and as there are 100,000 tenants to be provided for, under the new Act, it will take another 3,000,000 acres to do that. The policy advocated by the Minister is a sound one. I agree that provision should be made for the congests in the Western areas, but I would like to settle these men upon the Western areas, on the local land, and migrate the larger men and give them better farms, because the Land Act has made provision for them. At the same time, the Minister must not forget the claims of the local landless men spoken of by Deputies Conlan and Davin.

Mr. McGOLDRICK

I would like to refer to a point or two in connection with this discussion. There are landlords, so far as I understand, who have not made any return at all. Now, this is a vexed question. The onus is to be laid upon the tenant to take the necessary steps to ensure that he comes within the Land Act of 1923, and I consider that in such cases the onus of establishing his right to come in under the Act of 1923 should not rest upon the tenant. I know myself instances in which no returns have been made, and tenants feel, unquestionably, that it is a great grievance, so far as they they are concerned, that the responsibility and onus should rest upon them to take steps to compel the landlords to make returns, and to allow them to be included, as they should be, within the Land Purchase Act of 1923. Some of the landlords may, in these cases, believe that they have some technical ground for not making a return. I do not believe, in the cases that came before me, that they have any legal ground. However, this is a question for the Commissioners to decide, and it appears that the onus of getting the Commissioners to take steps falls upon the tenant. I do not think that that is right.

I think a great deal could be said with regard to the grievance that exists in respect to notices referred to from the Farmers' Benches. Undoubtedly, the tenants were confused. I think the situation was one in which anyone might reasonably have been confused. There was a question of arrears, and there was 25 per cent. reduction, and then compounded arrears and the half-year's annuity, coming together, and all these things confused the tenants, with the result that they did not know what they were expected to pay. Even the banks were confused. They did not know where they stood, or what they should take, and when they should take it. All this confusion combined to leave them in a very difficult position, and was responsible to a very large extent for whatever delay ensued in the payment of the annuities. Undoubtedly, the tenants were anxious, and ready, as far as possible, to meet their obligations, and these obligations were severe enough upon them. One would think in the stress that existed that it would be the duty of the establishment at headquarters to take steps to make it perfectly clear to them what their obligations were, and not to leave them in the confused condition, no matter what little cost it might entail in clerical work.

The next question is the question raised by Deputy Davin with regard to holdings being divided up. I have reason to know that that policy has been adopted to a certain extent. I do not know how extensive it has been, but I know instances in which it has happened. I know of two holdings, fairly large ones, to be divided into three. Without the consent of anybody these holdings were sold, each of them, to three tenants and two of the tenants were made to pay rent for the third one. That was done in order to evade the necessity of having a proper division made at headquarters. That still is the position in regard to these holdings. That will entail a lot of difficulty. It is up to the Land Commission to see that these people who really bought bona fide, and believed that they were buying under conditions that would leave them in the same boat as everybody else, are not disadvantaged because of some ruse or trick of lawyers or legal authorities that put them into that position and left them a legacy which it may be difficult to get out of unless they have the assistance of the Land Commission.

Another matter referred to here is this: An estate is before my mind, bought out since 1908 on a purchase agreement, although not vested. The valuation of the holdings on that estate would not be more than £5 on an average. There is a demesne on the estate. This demesne consists of an uninhabited house, fairly large, and a considerable quantity of land, the best on the estate undoubtedly. Now, this land has been untilled for two years and is grazed by everybody. The rates are unpaid, but the animals are well watched against seizure and the county council has taken steps to see if it is possible to recover the rates on the land. The rates are fairly considerable and their non-collection means a considerable loss. When is this land to be dealt with? It stands here in the centre of this congested community of small holders who bought out their holdings under an agreement and who are all in need of more land. When is it to be dealt with? And how are the rates to be collected? I would like that the Land Commission would keep these problems before them, because they are serious, and of importance to the community. It is too bad to have a big demesne like this lying idle and people all around in need of land and all anxious to till every perch they have. But they have not sufficient land to sustain themselves and their families. I think it is the duty of the Land Commission to see that these things are attended to. They are very serious to the community and they are a very great trouble to the Deputies on all occasions.

Mr. SEARS

I was very glad to listen to the statement of the Minister regarding the preliminary work done under the Land Act of 1923, particularly because that statement will explain to the people why the division of the land has not yet commenced. When this Act of 1923 was passed it was regarded all through the West of Ireland as a great Act of emancipation. It was going to do for the congested districts of the West what the British Government had failed to do, even though it had inquired into that problem by means of setting up Royal Commissions. For over half a century the British Government came up against that problem in various ways, but it did not do anything, and we looked forward to this Act to do for the congested districts what the British Government had failed to do. Thirty or forty years ago the British Government inquired into this problem. They appointed a Royal Commission to investigate it, and the finding of that Commission was that the only way to remedy the evils of the land problem in the West was to increase the size of the holdings in that part of Ireland. The British Government, however, did not do that. A way to a settlement of the problem was pointed out to them, but they went another way. Therefore, the people in the West looked with great hope to the Land Act of 1923, and as there has been considerable delay in administering the provisions of that Act the people are now becoming impatient. Anyone who knows the situation of these poor people or who is intimate with the terrible conditions under which they live, can understand that impatience and can forgive it. After hearing the explanation of the delay the Minister says we are now up against the problem as to how this terrible evil is to be remedied, and he says there is a right way and there is a wrong way of settling it. It cannot be settled in a parish or in a provincial way. It is an evil that can only be settled in a national way. It is quite true, of course, that it is a provincial problem, but I suggest that there is a terrible disgrace attached to this problem. First and foremost, it is misunderstood, it is even misunderstood amongst our own people. Often I have heard in the city of Dublin, and even in this Dáil, people say: "Oh, here is the cry of distress again from the West." We hear it said, too: "Have we not heard that cry a hundred times, and how often have they got relief." How did they get relief, I ask? They never got any addition to their land and their distress was caused fifty, thirty or twenty years ago from lack of suitable land. Their little farms were not increased in size, and when a bad year came destitution followed in its wake. It was no wonder it did, and why should people wonder. If they understood the problem they would not wonder.

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE

at this stage took the Chair.

Mr. SEARS

How, as the Minister asked, is this problem to be settled? It can be settled either in a right way or in a wrong way. Some Deputies mentioned about congested districts in the County Kildare or in the County Wicklow. I say that a congested district, that is, where you have small farms, is as big a problem and as great an evil in Kildare or Wicklow as it is in any other part of Ireland. In every part of Ireland we want small farms increased, so that they will be capable of sustaining and giving the occupier an opportunity to make a decent living for his family. Whether such a congested district is in Connaught or out of Connaught that should be done, only I hope it will be done in Connaught first, and in Mayo before any place else. It would be a great wrong to bring congests from Galway or Mayo and plant them down in some other county until you had first increased the size of the uneconomic holdings in that county.

There is another problem, and that is the landless men. I have as much sympathy with the landless man who was brought up on a farm, either as a labourer or as a farmer's son, as any other Deputy, but when you have not enough of land for them, are you going to continue the system of small holdings? I think that the nature of the situation suggests that the first thing to be done with any available land you have for distribution is to increase the size of the holdings already held. Make them economic first, and then if there is any other land create economic holdings for the landless men. But before you increase the size of the uneconomic holdings, if you commence to divide the ranches into holdings for landless men, you will simply be perpetuating the present evil and doing a terrible wrong to everyone concerned. Anyone that knows Connaught and sees year after year the battalions of young men and girls leaving their country to seek a living in another country, going over to Scotland to be herded in sheds and treated with contempt and insult at a time when there is plenty of land in Ireland for them, must admit that the problem in the West is very bad indeed. In size the holdings are only a third or a quarter of a decent farm. Not alone are the holdings small, but the land is bad. We all know the history of the conditions under which these people exist at present. They were driven back on the mountains and into the bogs, and both they and their ancestors have been tilling this miserable land for generations. No human labour could make this land profitable.

These people must be brought out of the bogs and off the mountain sides and put on good decent land. I agree with some Deputies who stated here that those who have large holdings in Connaught should be encouraged to go into the Midlands and take holdings there of an equivalent size to their own, leaving their own holdings to be divided up afterwards. I understand that that is the policy of the Land Commission and that is the line on which they are working. I agree it is a sensible line. If this problem is not taken up on national lines it will continue to be a sore in the future as well as it has been in the past. I was glad to see that Deputies from other counties have approved of the suggestion made by the Minister, and that they are prepared to approach this problem in a good spirit. It can be settled without causing friction anywhere. An experiment in the matter of transplanting and emigration has been made already by the Land Commission. I know of whole parishes and of half parishes that were taken and transplanted. They were taken to other districts and given good land, and I know that in their new homes these tenants have been successful in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred. Their new farms and holdings are a credit to them. Wherever they go they prove to be good citizens and add to the wealth of the nation. Is it not better, I ask, to have them on good land making a decent living instead of allowing them to remain under the miserable conditions in which they existed years ago? Is it not better, I ask, to have these people on good land in other counties rather than to have the bullocks on it? Their labour on this good land will be more productive than it can be on the bogs on which they live at present. The Minister himself has no excuse for not settling this problem. There is no Minister of Agriculture in any country who has such drastic powers as he has now. He can take possession of land, not alone in the congested districts, but in any part of the Saorstát for the purpose of relieving congestion. Deputy Conlan referred to a bog held by the landlord. That cannot be, as the Minister can take possession of any bog, no matter who has it, and divide it up among the neighbouring tenants. The Minister has complete powers to settle this question which has troubled Ireland for a long time. He has asked for the support of the Dáil, and I believe that the Dáil will give it to him.

Mr. CONLAN

The Deputy who has just sat down stated that the bog to which I referred could be taken by the Minister. The Minister in fact tried his best and could not get it.

Mr. BAXTER

I think that there will be general agreement with the Minister's statement that the Land Commission is working very hard. I am as critical of its work as anybody but I can agree with the Minister's statement, and I also agree with the principles which he has enunciated in regard to untenanted land. The problem cannot be dealt with by counties or districts but from the point of view that congestion exists and that the greatest congestion must first be relieved and so on down the whole line until the State, which Deputy Sears wishes, has been created. There has been a good deal of discussion as to the attitude of the Land Commission in prosecuting tenants for arrears. Deputy White has been inclined to blame the Land Commission; I am not going to blame the Land Commission but the Minister himself. He is responsible as the Land Act, and the arrears that were tacked on to it, have created the state by which the tenants had to pay arrears on annuities in twelve months. It is because they were honest enough to pay where they had not got the money that there has been a great deal of contention as well as actions in the courts, and very considerable dissatisfaction throughout the country. The Minister may as well accept it and realise that it is the Land Act and not his Department that is responsible for that. It is not owing to the administration of his Department but to the fact that the Act provides that tenants have to pay arrears which they have not paid off yet. I presume that we are debarred from discussing that part of the Land Act which deals with arrears. I would like to hear the Minister say, as I heard him say some time ago, that in the distribution of land, account is not going to be taken of the political point of view of claimants for land. There is what I believe to be a very false impression created throughout the country, that only the adherents of a certain political party will have any claim or right to get any land that will be distributed. Very good care has been taken to disseminate that point of view in many counties, but I believe it is not correct. It would be a very false standard on which to base a man's claim for land. I believe that many of them would be found to be very unworthy and, in some cases, incapable of managing the land if they got it, taking into account the use they have made of the little land already in their possession. That ought to be the standard by which a man's fitness should be judged and not his adherence to this or that political party. I think it would be a good thing if the Minister would state that, irrespective of what political party a man may belong to, whether he belongs to the political party in this House or to that outside it, his claim, will be recognised. I would also like the Minister to state what position we are in with regard to the vesting of land.

I believe that in a considerable number of cases the arrears have been paid off, and that the tenants are in a position on some estates to have the land vested and thus to enjoy the full benefits of the Land Act. When does the Minister expect that this land will be vested, and why have steps not been taken before now to put the Minister in a position to pay for this land in order that it may be vested in the tenants? I would also like to know if the Minister has reconsidered his attitude with regard to the payment of arrears to facilitate the vesting of land, and whether arrears still outstanding shall be added to the purchase money. I also want to suggest to the Minister, in regard to the allusion made by Deputy Sears to the bogs, that in some counties this question of taking over bogs is causing very serious trouble, and has cost life in some cases. On many estates that will be vested in tenants under the 1923 Act there is a considerable portion of bog adjoining, but up to the present this bog is still in the possession of the landlord. In many cases the tenants do not know whether the bog is in the possession of the landlord or the Land Commission, and do not know whether the landlord has a right to set it or not. There is a large portion of bog not used by tenants, although a considerable number of them are in need of bog. The landlord may, perhaps, permit tenants on the estate to use it, but he will not permit outsiders to do so. I would urge the Minister that in the period that will elapse before next season's turf-making, steps should be taken as far as possible by the Land Commission to acquire and distribute bogs on estates that will be vested in tenants under the 1923 Act. I am not speaking of bogs in areas that may be termed untenanted, but where the tenants will have land vested in them. I would urge this point strongly on the Minister because not only is it an economic necessity in some districts, but it is also a matter that is causing very serious dissatisfaction and grave trouble. I recognise, of course, that the distribution of untenanted land is the first work to be done, but the distribution of untenanted land will go on in some districts to the benefit of some people, whereas in other districts very little will be done and very little benefit will accrue under the Land Act. Exorbitant rents are being paid for bogs, while the Minister has it in his power to reduce such rents. The holders are required in some districts to pay £1 a perch in order to have a fire in the winter. The Minister has power to reduce those rents, and I urge him, along with the work in connection with the distribution of untenanted land, to do what he can in this matter.

Mr. O'CONNELL

I think there will be general agreement with the statement made by Deputy Baxter that the general outline which the Minister has given us of the work of the Land Commission is, on the whole, satisfactory. I would press him specially to say what is his attitude towards the point raised by Deputy Davin, that is, the sale of lands by public auction or treaty in order to evade the working of the Land Act. With regard to the question of migration. I think we must all agree with the general principle stated by the Minister as to the way in which this problem is to be tackled. Where there is a big man in the congested area he will be found a more suitable man to migrate. There are many areas where there is not a big land owner. It would be well in dealing with the problem to note what Deputy Shaw has said, that is, to use bigger ranches for the purpose of migration rather than smaller ones in order that whole colonies may be migrated. Many people strongly object to migration, because they feel they will be strangers in a strange land. If they are migrated in colonies, and if their friends and neighbours are sent with them to a new land, they will have less reluctance in migrating. I think, having migrated those people, the Commission should not forget that it will be necessary for some time to take care of them, as it were, and to educate them into the new methods of agriculture prevalent in the district. Many of those men will come from districts where work is almost entirely manual. They will have no knowledge whatsoever of the use of machinery, or of the improved methods of agriculture, and special provision ought to be made to take care, as it were, of the migrants for a few years in their new and strange surroundings. With regard to the question of bogs, most of those migrants from the western areas live very near a bog, and I think they are inclined to put too much value on bogs for the purpose of fuel. They think nothing of a farm unless, as Deputy White would say, "there is a turf bank intil it." I know districts in Roscommon where bogs are scarce. People have a bog anything from four to-eight miles away from their farm. I maintain that the bog at that distance is more of an incumbrance than anything else. Those people start out in the morning early and come back at night with one load of turf in the day. Fuel at that price is not an economic proposition, and I would suggest to the Land Commission the possibility of examining such districts in the future, and seeing whether it would not be better, when they are putting up houses on those tracts of land, to fit them with anges for coal-burning. Coal, certainly in those districts, would be cheaper than turf, as a good deal of the valuable time of the migrant is spent in the bog.

The Minister spoke of one hundred thousand unpurchased tenants. I am sure he will realise that there were many purchased tenancies which are still uneconomic ones. Many of those in the buying of land, when it was divided in piecemeal fashion, would have patches of five or six acres, or even smaller patches, and would get an extra few acres. Those people, though they are purchased, have an equal claim with the uneconomic holders, who may be having their lands purchased now, and should not be forgotten when the land is being distributed. I agree with the general principles enunciated by the Minister, that the first claimant to the land is the uneconomic holder. When the operations of the late Congested Districts Board were suspended, very many men who had given long service to the Congested Districts Board were dismissed, and I would like the Minister to give an assurance now that when the new works are being begun, those men would get first preference when he is employing them, not the general labourers, but the gangers and supervisors and those who lost their positions.

Mr. NALLY

I wish to ask the Minister when it is intended that the Land Commission should divide the six or seven thousand acres of land they own in County Mayo and which they are letting out for grazing at a huge profit? That applies to the Ross. Clifford and Sligo estates, and other parts of the County Mayo, and is causing considerable unrest in those parts of the county. I think the first thing the Land Commission should do is to settle this.

Mr. CONNOR HOGAN

It will be well within the recollection of Deputies that when we were discussing the Vote of the Ministry of Agriculture the Minister stated that the Vote did not include all that was given to agriculture, and instanced that there was £600,000 in addition to the sums voted. The next morning one of the papers had in broad headlines: "A million for agriculture." I deny that agriculture is receiving anything like a million, and I deny that this sum of £672,000 is really devoted to agricultural purposes. I maintain that it falls into the same category as National Health Insurance, Unemployment Insurance, and the Poor Law system. In other words, it is a measure of social amelioration, and by no stretch of the imagination could it be regarded as an aid for agriculture, because it could not be demonstrated that agriculture will benefit as a scientific resultant from it. I am afraid that through the length and breadth of this country to-morrow, when people read the statement of the Minister for Lands and Agriculture with reference to his plan for redistributing land, it will come as something of the nature of a thunderclap. If I interpret the Minister correctly, he said that they had available something like five million acres of land, or, roughly, a quarter of the Free State, for distribution to relieve 100,000 congests.

Something like five million acres of land at least are required to relieve 100,000 congests. I am at a loss to know whether these figures include families in the congested areas alone or do they include all the uneconomic holders throughout the length and breadth of the Saorstát. The Minister laid down as a great cardinal factor that the main idea would be mass transportation. I have a little knowledge of history. I do not suppose—I exclude Cromwell's policy of "to hell or Connaught"—that we had anything in the world's history to approach the scheme that the Minister outlined to-night since Nebuchadnezzar transported the Israelites from the Jordan to the Euphrates, from Jerusalem to Babylon. The Minister's plan of mass transportation is on the same scale as the mass transportation of 2,500 years ago. There is one difference—the Israelites trekked in large bodies; the Irish will trek singly now. If we remove 100,000 congests it roughly will mean about 600,000 per sons, because the people in the congested areas are said to be prolific. I am just wondering what the cost will be to this State. What will the effect be on production? What will the whole effect be on security? The principle appears to be to shift men who are not congests in themselves and perhaps have a sufficiency of land or perhaps something approaching a sufficiency of land. They are to be shifted to other neighbourhoods. They are displaced to make way for others. So that as a result of any such measure of amelioration we shall have internal convulsion and social revolution.

Deputies in this House seem to appreciate very fully what the Minister said. Unfortunately I am a realist. I do not possess that faculty of ingenious fancy that men call romanticism, and I ask: what can be the effect on the social and economic life of the nation of the transplantation of six or seven hundred thousand persons? As Deputy O'Connell put it, they themselves in their new surroundings would be strangers in a strange land. I quite agree. And I might amplify his statement by saying that as far as we can predict with any degree of certainly in human affairs they will be strangers in an unfriendly and perhaps in an actively hostile land. And even if the Powers of Arrest and Detention Act were to be passed in perpetuity, one wonders whether even all the resources of the State could save some of these people from falling victims to local jealousy in the areas to which they have migrated. I believe if you transport the ordinary, decent man he will succumb and he and his family will be helpless victims. If, on the other hand, you transport some of the hard "chaws," some of the toughs, will you not create a condition of unceasing strife?

Mr. GOREY

I know what he wants. He wants to get rid of the toughs of Clare.

Mr. CONNOR HOGAN

It appears to me that this problem should be approached very cautiously. Families who have no concern with the congested areas, who are not directly congests themselves, have to be transported apparently to make way for others. These people will be shifted from their homes and transported to other districts, where the conditions of farming are unknown to them, and they will not readily adapt themselves to the new conditions. In addition, why, I ask, should those people, even the congests, be severed from their home ties and from their associations in the localities in which they heretofore resided? It appears to me that, so far from embarking in that dangerous revolutionary policy of mass transportation, we ought to endeavour to relieve the lot of the congests without making anything like a violent distribution of land.

Certainly by all means divide the land where land is available, but not in the wholesale manner propounded by the Minister for Agriculture. I think that if in certain areas the lands were retained in the hands of the State and if the congests were allowed to graze cattle, young stock—we are endeavouring to introduce dairy schemes into the country and improve the dairy herd for instance—and if the congests were allowed to send heifers from their best milch cows to these lands at a reasonable fee that in itself would very materially help them in the battle for life. It would not be everything but it would be something. The State is laying up trouble for itself by this proposed wholesale distribution of land. We are relieving congestion in this generation by dividing all the available lands, but we forget that we are intensifying congestion and that there will be no land then to go round.

A DEPUTY

Why, sir?

Mr. CONNOR HOGAN

Where are you going to get it? Are you going to have another confiscation? Men with a sense of insecurity will not go in for improvements on a large scale. And as regards the cost, I wonder do we realise what the cost of this scheme of mass transportation will be? Will the congests be able to get on without State Aid? I doubt it. In many places they will have to build houses and walls and those things are very costly and they will perhaps have to drain the land. I ask the Minister to bear this in mind and to ask himself the question whether the State can meet the extraordinary expenditure of this scheme, or does he expect that the congests can do it. I believe that the cost of transporting 100,000 families of congests would be nothing less than £20,000,000, which would entail on this State a charge of £1,000,000 a year.

Mr. GOREY

Would the Deputy suggest coffins instead?

Mr. P. HOGAN (Clare)

The Hogans seem to be very much in evidence in this debate. I have a little to add to what was said by the different Deputies with regard to the distribution of land. It is the distribution of the untenanted land that I am mainly concerned with, and I am afraid that the Land Act is not operating as well as many would wish in that direction. There is some tardiness about its operations which both the uneconomic holders and the landless men do not seem to fancy. I have put several questions to the Minister, and the most information I could draw from him is this, that these lands would be vested in the Land Commission as soon as practicable. That might mean anything. I do not know how soon it would be practicable, and I would like to know this evening, or get some idea, as to how soon these lands may be vested in the Commission and distributed. There is some ferment and dissatisfaction in the country amongst the uneconomic holders and landless men in this connection. If I understood the Minister rightly, he indicated that it would be a wiser policy to deal with the congested districts first and then to come gradually into districts that are not congested. I do not know whether he understood the implication of the question or not, but it amounted to this, that they expect the policy of the Department would be to concentrate on the congested districts first. In Clare there are two districts which are not congested, and the reason these two districts are not congested is because of the action of a noble lord in another place. I will not mention the name of the noble lord, but possibly the Minister will recognise him when I tell him that an ancestor of his was engaged in a quarrel with the Danes somewhere up in Dorset Street in Easter Week in the 11th century. If we are going to concentrate on congested districts, are we going to distribute the other four or five districts in this county, and leave out these two districts there where there is most land available for distribution, and where there are a good many uneconomic owners and landless men? That would create a good deal of confusion, and I would like some information from the Minister in that matter.

There is also, of course, the point Deputy Davin raised. I should also like to say that when I brought the matter under the notice of the Minister he did try to take some steps to discover whether this land could be acquired under the Act of 1923. In this case I did try to show how the matter worked out. The person who owns the land realises that he cannot get a person, perhaps, to buy the entire property, and he puts it up to be sold in eight, nine, or ten lots, as the case may be. I pointed out to the Minister that it would be eight times easier to realise that estate if it was in the possession of one man, rather than in the possession of eight people. The Minister said that was not a difficult matter, and he gave me to understand that it would be just as easy to take over that land, though it was vested in 100 people. There is another thing, how soon may we expect that the Congested Districts will be dealt with? If we know that we may have some idea as to how soon we may concentrate on the other districts that are not congested. I do not know that I have anything else to say, except that I was very much interested in the transportation, or whatever you call it, of colonies from one district to another. I would like to make a suggestion to the Minister in that connection. It is quite possible you will be transferring colonies from different districts, and I would suggest to the Minister that he would give some consideration to the possibility of transferring colonies of Irish speakers from Irish-speaking districts into districts that are not Irish-speaking, and putting the colony together so that it would be self-supporting, and that instead of the Pale invading the Gaeltacht, we will have the Gaeltacht invading the Pale, and spreading the light there.

Mr. HOGAN

I think there is some slight misunderstanding, at least in some quarters, as to what I meant to convey when I gave figures of the numbers of tenants unpurchased, and of the amount of land available to deal with them. There are 100,000 tenants in the country. A tenant purchaser holds his land in fee simple, and is not, properly speaking, a tenant. There are 100,000 agricultural tenants who pay rents to landlords. The figure is slightly less, but it is not worth speaking about. The figures include congests, uneconomic holders, big farmers and small farmers—100,000 judicial and non-judicial tenants, present and future. I hope that is clear. They include everybody inside and outside the congested districts, congests and non-congests, big farmers and small farmers.

I said that the amount of land available for the Land Commission on a very generous estimate—I am taking into account probably all the land that the Land Commission can be reasonably expected to acquire—is about 5,000,000 acres. By a little analysis of previous operations of the Land Commission I have found that 100,000 tenant-purchasers were planted on between 2,500,000 acres and 3,000,000 acres of land. These figures are rough, but you can make some deductions from them, and one fairly safe deduction is that it will require 3,000,000 acres of land to deal with the existing tenants, and this will include in a great many instances part of their own holdings. It is certain that it will require 3,000,000 acres to deal with the existing tenants, but I think the amount required is nearer to 4,000,000 acres. Deputy O'Connell pointed out that a very great many tenant-purchasers who had already purchased their land under previous Acts, and who are paying their annuities, are still uneconomic, and have to be dealt with. I am afraid the fact is that we cannot expect, even with ideal conditions and even with the co-operation of everybody, to deal with congests under this Act, or any Act, so as to solve the problem finally, but rather our aim should be to go as far as we can to solve it, and at least to make sure that difficulties encountered can be got over, and should not be allowed to stand in the way of a solution of that particular problem. I do not mean to suggest for one moment that we were to concentrate on the congested districts, and I never meant to suggest that congests outside what are technically known as congested districts were not to be dealt with. I did not deal at any length with congests outside congested districts, for they present no problem as a rule, except in a county like Cavan, and in certain small areas outside Cavan, where they do present difficulties, but as a general rule, taking the country as a whole, present no problem, for there is land. They can be dealt with quite simply. I took it for granted that no one could possibly so misconstrue what I said as to think it was our intention to make holdings within the congested districts economic, and leave congests outside the congested districts out of the settlement.

I referred to congests especially because they are, roughly speaking, the most difficult problem. There are, as I said, small areas outside the congested districts that are also a difficult problem because of the absence of untenanted land in the neighbourhood, but speaking generally the congests present the really difficult problem. That was the reason that I referred to them and concentrated on them for the moment. All I intended to convey was that when the Land Commission was acquiring untenanted land in the congested districts they have to keep well in mind the fact that they are to deal with every uneconomic tenant left unpurchased, and in addition with a very large number of uneconomic tenant purchasers who have purchased their holdings under the previous Land Acts. When dividing untenanted land, either inside or outside a congested district, they must keep the fact well in mind that if they are to deal with all the congests, or with a reasonable number of them, if they are to make a reasonable number of uneconomic holdings economic they must be careful not to divide the land indiscriminately and choose a few congests who happen to be in the neighbourhood, and so far as the remainder of the land is concerned to divide it among landless men. They must be careful to follow some general scheme. They must have in their minds the fact that even though there may be very few congests in this particular district, there may be a very large number of congests in other districts who will have to be migrated. When Deputies asked me why could not land be bought here, there and everywhere, and divided with an eye to the immediate needs, that is the reason that that cannot be done. Deputies should realise that though it may be a very effective proposition to talk of taking different estates in this county or the other county to advertise the work of the Land Commission, by doing that, and dividing these estates amongst landless men of particular districts we would be pursuing a policy which, if continued, would leave us in the end with, I should say, three-quarters of the congests of the Western seaboard, and of other places like Cork and Cavan, where there are a very large number of congests concentrated. That is as far as I wish to go under that heading.

I do not want to hold out the hope that the Land Commission will be able to deal with all congests. They will not. The problem is too big. There will be a residue of congests who will not be migrated, I am afraid. There will be, apart altogether from the fact that there may not be enough land, even if they could be migrated, a large number of congests left who will not migrate in the end. The exigencies of the case will be such, perhaps, that landless men will be dealt with even to a greater extent than would be absolutely correct if one were in a position to put through an ideal solution. Between one thing and another, between the difficulty of migrating congests, between the difficulty of finding suitable areas to which to migrate them, between the expense, between the demand of landless men for land in areas where there are no congests— taking all the circmustances into account, it will surprise me if in the end all the congests are dealt with. But certainly the policy of the Land Commission should be, so far as possible, to aim at dealing with all congests, and it should be the aim of every responsible party in the State to co-operate in that, and to forego, each and every one of them, the undoubted political advantages to be gained in advocating land purchase for this area and that area. Without the co-operation of every party and of every responsible Deputy, every responsible public man, with a general consciousness that it is necessary to examine, first, the claims of people who may be living at the other end of the country before you can divide land among people who would be in other circumstances entitled to the land, and who live in the particular neighbourhood, you will not be able to deal with the problem. With that consciousness, with that policy clearly defined, and with the goodwill and co-operation of every party behind that policy, you can go very near to the solving of this problem.

I want to clear up one point. I stated that 40 per cent. of returns made by landlords were incorrect. That statement in itself is not quite correct. What I should have said was that 40 per cent. of returns made by landlords were challenged by tenants, and that is not exactly the same thing as saying that 40 per cent. of the returns were incorrect. They were challenged by the tenants largely on the ground that abatements of rent were not allowed, and in some cases the tenants' contention was upheld; in other cases the landlord's contention. I could not say what the proportion was. I should say that it was about half-and-half of the 40 per cent. But I was not correct in stating that 40 per cent. of the returns made by landlords were incorrect. The exact fact is that 40 per cent. of returns made by landlords were challenged by tenants, and in some cases the landlords were vindicated, while in others the tenants were. As a result of these disputes the Judicial Commissioner had to try at least two thousand cases. Deputy White instanced cases where processes were served after the bank drafts had been sent to the Land Commission. I am quite sure that that is so. What occurs is this. Tenant purchasers owed a year's arrears, and after they had sent their annuities direct to the Land Commission they received processes. That occurred, of course, every day. Tenant purchasers let the 1st June pass without paying their annuities. They waited until the end of June, knowing that they were a month in arrears. They wait for the first notice, for the second notice, for the third notice, for the fourth notice. They wait until they get a solicitor's letter——

Mr. GOREY

On a point of explanation. Let us be right about this. Is there a first, second, third, and fourth notice, and-then a solicitor's letter?

Mr. HOGAN

There is no first notice now.

Mr. GOREY

What is the use of saying that there is a first, second, third and fourth, if there is not?

Mr. HOGAN

There is no first notice now. I am speaking of the general cases. Tenants know perfectly well that the gale days are due in December. There is not a single tenant purchaser who does not know that. Really I do not think it is expecting too much civic sense from the farmers, if they do admit that they have to pay their Land Commission annuities, that they should not take advantage of unsettled conditions of one kind or another in order to get out of doing so.

Mr. GOREY

I agree.

Mr. HOGAN

I think that, as a rule, tenant purchasers who have received money which the State borrowed, for which the State pledged its credit, this money being used in order to make them the owners of their land at reasonable rates of interest, at very reasonable prices, and who admit that they should pay their annuities, should pay the annuities when they are able, at least when they are due. We can leave out of account for the moment people who for one reason or another are actually not able to meet this charge, and they are a very small proportion of the people in arrears. The point of view should not be that they will not pay this debt, which they admit they owe, which they would not dare to say is not a liability due from every point of view. They should not wait until the bailiff or process-server calls around. I think it is not expecting too much civic spirit in the farmers to pay that debt when it becomes due, whenever they are able.

Mr. WHITE

Might I interrupt the Minister to ask if he has seen the decision that Judge Cooke gave in Lifford in April last?

Mr. HOGAN

I do not know anything about that decision.

Mr. WHITE

According to his judgment the Land Commission acted illegally.

Mr. HOGAN

When they went through these lists they found that nearly always it is the same people who owed these arrears; that they are often big farmers, as often big farmers as small farmers. The same people always lose their Receivable Orders; the same people, half-year after half-year, do not receive their Receivable Orders from the Land Commission. The same people do not receive letters from the Land Commission.

Mr. GOREY

Beat the drum now.

Mr. HOGAN

They are always the same. It is in the interests of the farmers themselves that these annuities should be paid promptly, because if they are not they fall on the rates, and every farmer and every responsible farmer Deputy, should make it clear that there is no excuse for waiting for a notice from the Land Commission, or a letter from a solicitor. It would be the duty of every farmer who has borrowed money from the State to pay the interest on the annual debt and not to wait on these notices.

Mr. DAVIN

If he has the money.

Mr. HOGAN

As a rule it is not the farmers who are badly off who withhold these payments. The commonest thing in the world, as Deputy White knows, is for tenant purchasers to wait, say two or three months after the annuity is due, until they know that processes are out, and then to send on the amount of the annuity to the Land Commission. That is quite common. That is a procedure which is not peculiar to a debt due to the Land Commission. Every solicitor knows that the commonest thing in the world is to find people who owe money and who refuse to pay, waiting until the process is out and then sending the money along. The Land Commission, after two or three months dealing with people who are in arrears, instruct the solicitor to proceed. He issues his processes and the annuity is paid. Who is to pay the solicitor's costs? Is it the State? Sharp practice of that sort goes on every year, and when I get complaints that processes have been served after payments have been made I find in practically every case on investigation that the annuity was owed for half a year, or for a year; generally the last gale day had passed for three or four months, and generally the case had reached the hands of the solicitor, and the process was actually issued before the money arrived in the Land Commission. I can assure Deputy White that the very day on which the Land Commission receives instalments by post they immediately communicate with the local solicitor, who is absolutely entitled to get his decrees for his costs.

Mr. WHITE

Judge Cooke did not give a decree in the Bonner case.

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE

It would be better if the Deputy heard the Minister, and then asked any questions he wished afterwards.

Mr. HOGAN

After the process is issued before payment has been made it is the duty of the tenant to go to the Court and prove that he had paid before it was issued. Then the boot would be on the other foot. I do not know of any case where tenants, who know the law in this respect as well as any solicitor, have succeeded in getting costs against the Land Commission. With regard to Deputy Davin's point, as everybody knows, we have no power under the Land Act to prevent owners from selling their lands, and I think everybody knows the reason. We could not announce generally that the owners of landed property, who for the greater part are tenant purchasers, are not entitled to sell their lands. We took certain powers over the lands in the Land Act. These powers are, as some Deputy said, very drastic. We can go no further. I need not point out the effect of such powers. It would mean that the value of all property of that class would immediately fall to a figure considerably lower than the market value of the property before such a notice was issued. I think no responsible Deputy would advocate for a moment that we should by statute take power to prevent any class from selling the property which they possess at the moment.

Mr. DAVIN

I do not think I advocated that.

Mr. HOGAN

I am not saying the Deputy did. I am just going into the reasons. On the other hand there is ample power under the Land Act to acquire lands that have been recently disposed of. The fact that A is the owner and that B was the owner yesterday makes no difference to the powers which the Land Commission have under the Act. I do agree that when lands are sold and divided, say, into small holdings which are now the property of seven or eight persons instead of one, each of them owning perhaps only an economic holding, it makes it more difficult for the Land Commission to re-acquire these lands. It is easier as a practical matter to acquire 200 or 300 acres from one owner than to go in and evict five or six small purchasers to get possession. The powers are there, if necessary, to use them and the only thing that is to be said on that particular question, the question of owners dividing their lands and then selling them, is that it only occurs in very few cases. That of course is a form of land purchase without State aid. Wherever the circumstances justify it the Land Commission will exercise their powers of acquisition of these lands even if they are divided, just the same as they are exercising their powers against any other land owned by anybody else in the neighbourhood. Where the circumstances justify it they will do that and that is the only thing that can be done.

Mr. DAVIN

Is it not possible for the Land Commission where they knew land was advertised for sale to have arrangements immediately made for the inspection of these lands?

Mr. HOGAN

That is possible, the Deputy is quite correct, and so far as is possible when lands are being sold in that way the Land Commission do take cognisance of it, and they will inspect these lands as quickly as possible. Owners who, in the normal way come under the Land Act, have ample notice that the lands will be acquired, and any purchasers buying land in these circumstances, do so at their own risk. Deputy Davin also wanted to know how we appointed inspectors. The appointments made were thirty-four inspectors, five assistant inspectors, and thirteen valuers—the C.D.B. staff transferred. We have only appointed twenty-two new officials between inspectors and surveyors. These were appointed by the Selection Board set up by the Civil Service Commission. I need not say that there were a great many applicants for these appointments. The Selection Board had first of all to analyse the various applications, go into the qualifications of the applicants as stated by themselves in their applications, and they did not find much difficulty in selecting men whose applications were such that they were entitled to further investigation. Then out of the very large number of the applicants, a certain proportion were summoned to Dublin, interviewed and examined as to their experience and their qualifications. The Selection Board after this examination selected the most suitable candidates, with a special eye to the work that had to be done, and after making quite sure, as far as it could be made, that the qualifications of the men selected were such as to be likely to make them efficient inspectors.

Mr. DAVIN

I raised a point with regard to the districts to which those people were likely to be sent.

Mr. HOGAN

With regard to that point, I do not think an inspector is usually sent to his own district. I do not think you could lay down a general rule that he should not. From experience such a rule is, I think, not necessary. As I say, inspectors are not, as a rule, sent to their own districts. Deputy Shaw pointed out that it would be well, when tenants are being migrated, to migrate them in colonies or migrate them in large numbers, and he suggested the purchase of large estates rather than small estates so that they could be kept together, so that it would not be necessary to dot them here and there, one man by himself without a friend near or a neighbour from his own district. He pointed out that perhaps the right way to do it would be to acquire large areas of land and to put in seven or eight or a dozen migrants from one particular district, so that the break with the home associations would not be too great. That is obviously the best policy and what the Land Commission will, so far as possible, adopt. Deputy Baxter wants to know is the land to be divided on political lines, if you like. I do not think it is necessary to answer that question. Of course, it is not.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

resumed the Chair.

Mr. JOHNSON

Is the Minister making sure that no means are being adopted at present to give that impression?

Mr. HOGAN

I am. I am aware that organisers of all parties are announcing that "If you give your name we will get the land for you." I know that is going on. I know that is occurring with regard to organisers and persons connected with all parties. I have heard it is occurring with regard to persons connected with the Farmers' Party.

Mr. GOREY

Name.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

Let the Minister conclude.

Mr. HOGAN

I have heard it stated on reliable authority in connection with men supposed to be connected with the Farmers' Party. It is inevitable that that sort of thing should occur.

Mr. GOREY

It is inevitable that lies should be told! Give the names.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

Let the Minister say what he has to say.

Mr. HOGAN

I will not give the names nor the information I have. But I want to say that I have most reliable information that organisers and men connected with all parties in the Dáil have been stating: "Give us your name and we will get you the land. We are the only people who can." I will give the Deputy in confidence the names of such as have done so.

Mr. GOREY

I will be delighted to have them.

Mr. HOGAN

I do not think that that takes in anybody. But if it is any consolation to Deputies I can assure them that the Land Commission will do what they have always done in the matter. They will divide the land on the merits of each case.

Mr. JAMES COSGRAVE

Who are the organisers concerned on behalf of the Independent Party?

Mr. HOGAN

I think I could answer that question also. Deputy Baxter put forward an extraordinary explanation for the large arrears of Land Commission annuities that are outstanding. He stated that it was because they had to pay arrears of Land Commission annuities and arrears of rent together. Well, I have heard a great many explanations for the large amount of arrears, but that is the most naive. The arrears of annuities in 1922 before the Land Act was passed were far bigger than since the Land Act was passed. As a general rule, people who owe arrears of rent are people who have not purchased their holdings. The people who owe arrears of annuities are one class of people; people who owe arrears of rent are another, with a very small number of exceptions.

Mr. BAXTER

The Minister misunderstood what I said. What I did refer to was the confusion that had been created over the collection of annuities. I stand by my statement that the compounded arrears of rent that had to be paid prevented the annuitants paying their interest in lieu of rent, and many of those tenants have been proceeded against.

Mr. HOGAN

I do not know what the Deputy means. If the Deputy agrees with me in the statement I have just made, that is an end of it, but the arrears of rent have absolutely nothing whatever to do with the arrears of annuity. If that is clear I am satisfied.

Mr. BAXTER

Has it to do with interest in lieu of rent?

Mr. HOGAN

Compounded arrears of rent have nothing whatever to do with interest in lieu of rent or with annuities. As a rule, with very few exceptions, annuitants are people who have purchased their holdings. Tenants who pay interest in lieu of rent are tenants who have purchased their holdings, but whose holdings have not yet been vested. I was referring to the £2,900,000 of annuities, and I was explaining that there was about £1,000,000 of arrears in the year 1922-23. I want to make it quite clear that that was not caused by reason of the fact that people had to pay compounded arrears of rent. As a rule, the people who were paying compounded arrears of rent, with very few exceptions, are not annuitants. Deputy Nally asked me when did we intend to divide the 5,000 acres purchased in Mayo, which is let for grazing. I presume he refers to the land purchased by the Congested Districts Board, and taken over by the Land Commission on the absorption of the Congested Districts Board. I pointed out there were 21,000 acres of such land, of which 10,000 acres have been divided within the past year, and the balance will be divided before the end of this year, and in good time for next year's cropping. I think these are the only points requiring reply.

Mr. WILSON

I would ask the Minister to reply to my question with regard to the two million acres of land under previous Acts—when they are disposed of will that complete the operations under the old Acts?

Mr. BAXTER

I would also ask for a reply to my questions as to the taking over of bogs, and the putting of arrears into purchase money, the vesting of the lands, and the floating of stock.

Mr. WHITE

I would like to remind the Minister of the decision come to by the County Court Judge at the Lifford Quarter Sessions. Judge Cooke nilled cases there, where it was proved the rent had been received before the process was served. Will the Minister have any objection to giving the Dáil a report of the names of inspectors appointed, their previous calling and experience, and the districts they are appointed to?

Mr. McGOLDRICK

The Minister might say on whom the onus rests in regard to estates in respect of which the landlord has not made a return— whether it is for the tenant to prove that he is within the Purchase Act, or the landlord to prove that he is not.

Mr. WHITE

With regard to the assertion made about the members of the various parties promising land, I promised a fellow twenty acres down in Clare.

Mr. DAVIN

I would like if the Minister would give me privately or publicly the name of any organiser who promised land on behalf of the Labour Party. So far as I am concerned—and I think it is the general attitude adopted by our party—we know we have no power to promise land because the power is in the hands of the people to whom the Minister is responsible.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

The Deputy is now getting into a new and most offensive point. The Minister is responsible to the Dáil. The power is in the hands of the Dáil. If the Deputy means anything else he is wrong and he is getting into a new and more offensive point than ever.

Mr. DAVIN

I do not wish to be offensive.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

Does the Deputy mean that the Minister is responsible to the Dáil or otherwise?

Mr. DAVIN

I understand that the Minister—

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

Does Deputy Davin mean that the Minister is responsible to the Dáil and that the Dáil has the power of giving the land? Is that what he means?

Mr. DAVIN

I do not think so.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

Neither do I. That settles that point.

Major COOPER

May I remind the Dáil that there are some thirty Votes yet to be discussed, and that we have got to get all the stages of the Appropriation Bill finished to-morrow.

Mr. SHAW

Before the Minister replies, might I ask what is his intention with regard to vesting lands as far as possible in trustees living near towns so that they may keep cows on these lands?

Mr. HOGAN

I have to smile at the innocence of Deputies. I do not know of any politicians who do not say to their supporters "Vote for me and we will get land." I know it occurs in every party and I state that here definitely. There is no Deputy here in any party who does not know that what I am stating is quite true.

Mr. GOREY

We know it is true on behalf of the Ministerial party. We know their organiser said so and we can prove it.

Mr. HOGAN

I do state definitely that the lands will be divided on the merits, and that no political considerations of any kind will enter into it. Deputy Baxter asked me will bogs be divided as well as untenanted land and at the same time? They will, of course. I could not promise that there will be an appropriate amount of bog provided with a certain amount of untenanted land, but the Land Commission is well aware that it is very little use giving tenant-purchasers holdings except they have an appropriate amount of bog as well.

Deputy McGoldrick asked me will the onus be on tenants of supplying particulars in the event of the landlord refusing. The onus is on the Land Commission to get the particulars, and if they do not get them from the landlord they will get them from the tenant, and if they do not get them from either they will have to send an inspector to make inquiries.

Deputy Shaw pointed out the advantages of vesting lands as far as possible in trustees near towns to enable the poor people and the people generally, who wish to do so, to keep cows on these lands. I agree with him that that was a great advantage. It has been done under the 1903 Act, and it will be done, and there is ample power to do it, under the 1923 Act.

Deputy Wilson wants to know whether the operations under previous Land Acts will be concluded when we have dealt with the two million acres of land in the hands of the Land Commission. When we have dealt with the two million acres in the hands of the Land Commission, and also with whatever amount of land has been acquired by the Land Commission that was formerly held by the old Congested Districts Board, then all operations under previous Acts will be finished. The Land Commission at present cannot buy land under any previous Acts. They must buy under the 1923 Act, and when pending sales have been dealt with, the operations under previous Land Acts will have been finished.

Mr. P. HOGAN (Clare)

Would the Minister say what is the position of tenants in small villages close by an estate which has been divided and who are tenants of that estate?

Mr. HOGAN

The question is whether they are agricultural tenants or not. If they are agricultural tenants they must be dealt with under the Act. If they are not agricultural tenants they are not dealt with under the Act. If the Deputy asks me what is an agricultural tenant, I prefer to say I do not know. I could not define an elephant, but I would know what agricultural land was if I saw it. If he gave me a specific example I would probably be able to say whether it was an agricultural holding or not. But to ask me for a definition of an agricultural holding or an agricultural tenant, would be to ask me something I could not answer.

Mr. WHITE

You have adroitly avoided Deputy White's point.

Mr. GOREY

Am I to understand that the Minister is definitely abandoning the idea of sending out notices which the Land Commission used send out, and is it his idea that annuitants throughout the country must be like a lot of athletes on the mark, ready to start when the pistol is fired?

Mr. HOGAN

The Land Commission do not intend to revert to the six day notice. There is not a tenant purchaser throughout the country who purchased under these two Acts who does not know that his gale days are the first of June and the first of December. He has his receivable order; yet he wants another notice and he wants a thousand pounds of public money spent on that.

Mr. WILSON

How did the Land Commission arrive at £1,100 as a grant in aid of costs?

Mr. HOGAN

That is an appropriation in aid of costs which they had to pay for legal proceedings instituted.

Mr. WILSON

But they succeeded in the proceedings?

Mr. HOGAN

I think it appropriation in aid of costs which are received afterwards. If they employ a solicitor they must pay him costs. If he recovers the costs it comes in in aid of the Vote.

Mr. JOHNSON

Will the Minister explain why, in view of the precarious position of agriculture and the uncertain position of the future, there is such eagerness on the part of farmers to take upon themselves a greater burden of land?

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

That is hardly a question which affects the Minister's department.

Vote put and agreed to.