Dáil Éireann debate -
Friday, 12 Dec 1924

Vol. 9 No. 26

PRIVATE DEPUTIES' BUSINESS. - OPERATION OF THE LAND ACT, 1923.

Mr. LYONS

I beg to move the motion on the Order Paper:

"That the Dáil disapproves of the delay which is taking place in carrying out the provisions of the Land Act, 1923."

In moving this motion I do not intend to say anything that could be regarded as a personal attack on the Minister for Lands and Agriculture, on any Minister of the Executive Council, or on any individual employed by the Land Commission. But I think it is necessary that some disapproval should be shown by the Dáil of the slow methods adopted by the Land Commission in carrying out the provisions of the Land Act of 1923. It is a well-known fact that about 75 per cent. of the people of the country have no stake or interest in the country. You have, on one side, a certain class who are supposed to be the owners of the land of the country. This class numbers only a few. On the other side, you have thousands of people who are born into the world under the same circumstances as this particular class, but for whom there is no land available. We were told that the Land Act of 1923 was really introduced on behalf of the masses of the people and not on behalf of a certain class of the community. So far, we have had no proof of the work done by the Land Commission. We have had no proof as to the lands divided or handed over to the people under the Land Act of 1923. It was in order to get from the Minister for Lands and Agriculture some information as to when the sufferings of these uneconomic holders and landless people will be eased that I put this motion down.

I am quite sure that the Minister for Lands and Agriculture will do everything in his power, in his reply, to try and cloak any mistakes or delays made by the Land Commission. I feel sure that the reply will be that the Land Commission is doing everything in its power, and that a certain amount of land—some hundreds of thousands or millions of acres—have already been purchased by the Land Commission. I ask the Minister, here and now, if he can say how many congested areas have been relieved and how many estates have been divided? From one end of the Saorstát to the other, have 100 acres been divided under the Land Act of 1923 and handed over to the uneconomic holders? I say there have not. There are, of course, lands which were in the hands of the Congested Districts Board, prior to coming under control of the Land Commission. That land was purchased by the British Government and was handed over automatically in the names of the tenants chosen by that Government to the Saorstát Government for division by the Land Commission. These lands, I admit, have been divided in the different areas where they are situate, but I maintain that there have been no lands divided under the 1923 Act.

As I said on Wednesday week, the Land Act is 18 months old, and surely we should expect something from an Act that is 18 months old? We expected that some benefits would be achieved by that Act. I may be told by the Minister that he does not want to take drastic measures to compel the owners to hand over the land. But I would like to point out that every man born into this world is born against his will. Seeing he comes into the world, he must live upon the surface of the earth or not live at all. I do not see how any individual can claim ownership of the land. No set of individuals have the right to claim that they are owners of the land. To my mind, the land is the property of the State, and those individuals who claim to be owners of the land are only trustees for the State. In other words, the State has entrusted to them a portion of the lands of the country. I think it is nearly time that that trust should be taken from the hands of the few and should be transferred to the thousands of people willing and able to work these lands.

I am sure that neither the Minister for Lands and Agriculture nor the Ministers of the Executive will say that they are under a compliment to me for bringing forward this motion. It has been proved that in the recent elections only 45 per cent. of the people recorded their votes. Why was that? Simply because the remaining 55 per cent. have no interest in the country. They have nothing to live for. Small farmers and uneconomic holders and landless people have nothing to look forward to. You had the Land Act introduced for the purpose of election propaganda. It was introduced in 1922 in order to safeguard the position in 1923 by getting a big majority for the Government. During the time of the passing of that Act and afterwards, I said that the Minister for Lands and Agriculture was sincere and that the Land Act was introduced to meet the uneconomic conditions. Since that statement was made by me frequently in the country, I was compelled to put down this motion to draw some statement from the Minister regarding the working of the Act.

You have in this country thousands of people who have no earthly means of livelihood. It is a sorrowful sight for any Deputy to witness, week after week, hundreds of young men and women leaving this country to make a living in and build up a foreign State. If they had any means of living at home, they would be of benefit to this State. But they leave the country at the age of 18 or 20, and they give their brains and intelligence and strength to the building up of another country. Surely it is time that this should cease. Surely it is time that we did something to enable the people of this country to live at home? I quite understand that it may be a quest on of money and that the financial condition of the State may not be very healthy. But now that England has agreed to guarantee the Land Bonds to the value of £30,000,000, there should be no further difficulty in purchasing and dividing these lands. The Land Commission, if they take a serious view of this question, can easily improve the conditions of the people.

I know an old gentleman with 1,500 acres. He had only a man employed on that land. The Minister for Justice is laughing. I can only tell him that this same man was fined last year because he did not pay the licence duty on his dog. These are the men whom it is sought to retain in the country. These are the men whom we want to have control of the land. If the poor man has a cow which wanders along the road and, confronting a Civic Guard, blows her breath upon him, he is prosecuted and fined 5/-. It as a well-known fact that unless the position of the people is improved and that the lands are divided in the coming year, there is going to be such a land campaign as has never before been experienced in this country. I am not a bit ashamed to say here that that campaign has been already started. It is nearly time that we forgot the idea of class and looked to the real interests of the people.

It is nearly time that something would be done for the poor, struggling, uneconomic holders and small farmers. It is time their position was improved. The Minister for Lands and Agriculture is the only Minister at the moment who can, in a true sense, relieve the distress amongst the unemployed. In every town you have large numbers of agricultural labourers, small farmers and their sons, looking for work. Very large numbers of town workers, who were engaged in factories and shops, are now unemployed. There are too many labourers spare in every town.

If an employer posts a notice in his window indicating that a man is required, there will be at least fifty or sixty applicants, and some twenty or thirty of those should really be living comfortably on the land. When the lands of Ireland are divided, there will be, I submit, sufficient employment for agricultural workers, and it will not be necessary for them to seek employment in towns. As a consequence, it will relieve unemployment in towns; there will be more work for town workers. The agricultural labourer or the small farmer will have his position improved when he gets a portion of land.

I would like lo touch upon the matter of unpurchased tenants. When the Dáil was passing the Land Act of 1923 we were told unpurchased tenants were getting a half-year's arrears wiped out; we were told they would not be penalised as rewards arrears. What way have they been dealt with? In every case where an unpurchased tenant was not in a position to pay, proceedings were taken against him and he was decreed. Very large numbers of decrees have been carried out. That condition of things is very unfair. In 1920, when the real war-cry in the country was: "Do not recognise England; in fact, denounce her works and pomps," poor, struggling small farmers and uneconomic holders, being patriots in their own particular sense, thought the best thing they could do was to retain the land.

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE

The Deputy is travelling outside the terms of the motion.

Mr. LYONS

But uneconomic holders are mentioned in the Land Act.

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE

The Deputy must confine himself to the delay in carrying out the provisions of the Land Act — those are the terms of the motion.

Mr. LYONS

We have been told that the unpurchased tenants who came under the Land Act would be seen to immediately. So far they have not been, and it is nearly time the Minister would do something in order LO relieve distress amongst them. I desire to touch upon the delay that is taking place in connection with Land Bank Tenants under the ]923 Act. In some eases Land Bank Tenants are paying to the extent of £7 10s. 0d. an acre. The land they have is worked by trustees; the trustees are responsible to the bank and the tenants had to borrow. They were not lucky enough to be able to afford money without borrowing. They borrowed from the bank and are paying 7 per cent. The Land Bank advances two-thirds and the tenants pay, on that, 5 per cent. They lodge the full amount to the bank and in place of getting interest on the one-third, they have to pay 4½ per cent. on that one-third. They have never received any communication indicating how much they are in debt or when it is likely t3iat the lands will be their property.

Part 3 of the Land Act has been drafted specially to deal with Laud Bank tenants, in consequence of numerous deputations and communications received by the Minister. Up to the present the Land Bank tenants are in the same position as they were in 1921 and 1922; there is no improvement. I think the Minister should make some satisfactory statement on this point. As regards distress in the different districts, that could be relieved by the Minister if the thousands of acres in the hands of the few at the moment were distributed amongst the thousands of people anxious and tiling to work them. If that could be done, it will be one of the best things that this Dáil has ever countenanced. I feel confident that when the Minister is replying, his statement will be so satisfactory that it will raise the hearts of every uneconomic holder and landless man.

I believe it will give those people a better sense of responsibility towards their country; it will make them believe. in the true sense, that they are genuine citizens and are looked upon as such, and not as slaves; it will indicate that it is the intention of this Government, as it was the intention of the Government that has evacuated the country, to look to the interests of the people in a proper manner, and that it is determined to improve the condition of the uneconomic holders and so prevent the possibility of starvation and want.

If the Government is anxious about the welfare of the country, and if it holds the opinion that it is composed of the only men in this country able to govern, then I put it to the Government that it is nearly time the welfare of the populace, particularly the uneconomic holders and small farmers, was considered. If those now in power desire to retain control, they should at once put the sections of the Land Act into force and so prove to an other wise doubtful people they are genuinely interested in helping them forward and are not anxious to fool them, as to all appearances they have been fooled up to the present in connection with this Land Act.

I could, of course, speak for six hours upon this question, but I have not the least idea of doing so. I am sure other Deputies are anxious to voice their opinions and to do their utmost to get some satisfactory statement from the Minister in order that the position of those unfortunate individuals whom we represent shall be improved.

Mr. JAMES COSGRAVE

I beg to second the motion. In doing so, I wish it to be clearly understood that I have no complaint against the Land Commission or its officials. I am only too well aware of the enormous difficulties that have to be contended with in trying to get required particulars from the last remnant of landlordism in Ireland. What I do suggest is, that the Minister for Lands and Agriculture will give a promise that as soon as an estate is purchased there will be no unnecessary delay in having it divided amongst the people. Heretofore, as Deputies are aware, during the time the Congested Districts Board was in operation, when an estate was purchased it was often kept in hands for 10, 12 or 20 years. I require an undertaking from the Minister that there will be no unnecessary delay. I am sure he will give that. If he does, the people will be satisfied that a serious effort will be made to put the Act into operation.

Mr. COLOHAN

In supporting this motion I feel I am voicing the opinions of all uneconomic holders in the Saorstát. They believe, as I do, that the Land Commission has not been sufficiently active in acquiring and distributing the farms and grazing ranches that are immediately available. We all know the problem is a big one. bristling with very many difficulties; but with an efficient and highly trained staff, such as is in the service of the Land Commission, it should be possible to expedite the transfer of the larger number of farms and ranches throughout the country. That is, of course. provided always that they are not hampered by undue interference or influence from interested quarters. I have a complaint to bring forward. I was requested by one of my constituents, who is Secretary of the Maynooth . branch of the "Back to the Land" Association, to draw the attention of the Minister and the Dáil to it. His letter reads:—

"It has been brought under our I notice that certain farms in this district have been acquired by the Land Commission and handed over to men who held the grazing rights only. The following is an instance:— A farm at Rathcoffey, one hundred and thirty acres, on the Aylmer estate, has been given to the grazier tenant by the Land Commission. Adjoining this farm there are five uneconomic holdings with an area of from five to ten acres each. If the above state of affairs is permitted to continue it will be impossible to obtain land for uneconomic holders and landless men."

He says further:—

"The following resolution has been unanimously adopted by the branch:

"That we the members of the Maynooth Branch of the Back to the Land Association call upon the T.D.'s for Go. Kildare to ask that Dáil Eireann issue orders directing that land acquired by the Land Commission be distributed amongst uneconomic holders and landless men instead of the present practice of accepting as tenants ‘land ranchers' who held the grazing rights thereby creating the worst form of landlordism with its attendant evils, unemployment, poverty and emigration."

If the information which I have just read is correct — I hope it is not — I would earnestly appeal to the Minister to put a stop to such a proceeding. He has repeatedly told us there is not enough land to go round. If that is the case, I do not see why these land ranchers should be given large holdings, while uneconomic holders are condemned to a hard living on small, farms. If this practice is allowed to continue, it will bring about a land war, and anybody who has experience of the laud war of the 'eighties does not, I am sure, want a repetition of it. We have had enough of strife lately.

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE

That does not arise on this motion.

Mr. COLOHAN

I have just reached the conclusion of my remarks. I consider it was my duty to bring those matters before the Dáil.

Mr. CONLAN

I do not agree with all the statements made by Deputy Lyons, and, in particular, I must contest his assertion that the right of private ownership in land should not be recognised. At the same time, however, I think he ought to be commended for the attempt he is making to ginger up the Land Commission. To show how urgent is the demand for speeding up the operations of that Department, I desire to cite one or two cases in my constituency which may, perhaps, be typical of other parts of the country. The first to which I would allude is the Verschoyle estate at Cloney, Co. Kildare. This is really an urgent case. I have here statements from people living on the property, and I have no doubt of their accuracy.

The landlord combines the functions of landlord and agent, one in regard to land which he owns himself, and the other as agent to a relative who owns portion of the land in the vicinity. This gentleman arrogates to himself the rights of a feudal baron. He has set up a system by which he can inflict fines on tenants, and he is able to enforce them. If a tenant, for instance, allows a cow to trespass on the road he is cited before this baronial court and a fine is inflicted. Deputies may ask how such fiae is enforced. It is enforced by the denial of access to the bog which is the only bog in the vicinity in which the people can get fuel. There are some 25 tenants on this property with holdings ranging from one rood to six acres, but there are some larger farmers as well. The tenants allege that in 1923 the landlord made exorbitant demands for the right to cut turf, and an agreement was not come to. Some people went on the bog and cut turf and proceedings were taken against them by way of injunction and damages and costs amounting to £1,800 were given against fourteen of these poor people. In addition, £276 was awarded against the larger tenants. There are 400 acres available for division in the landlord's hands, and it is high time that the lands should be divided amongst the people, who should be rescued from their very miserable position. They should be given access to the bog which has been denied them this year as well as last year. This gentleman will, no doubt, contest the operations of the Land Commission to the fullest extent because he is a very litigous gentleman, and the sooner the Land Commission gets busy with him the better.

I also wish to refer to the case of the Dobbs. estate, which is also in County Kildare: The people there occupy a dreary stretch of bog. There are 185 tenants and the average valuation is £7. Deputies can imagine what sort of holdings they possess. As far back as 1909 the miserable conditions under which these poor people live were recognised and the estate was surveyed and mapped by the Land Commission officials. The matter was allowed to hang over and upon the outbreak of the European war it dropped out of sight. On the pairing of the Act of 1923, with which the Minister's name is so honourably associated, representations were made again to the Land Commission, and several deputations waited upon the heads of the Department. Promises were made that steps would be taken to have the lands divided and, at the same time, land was designated which would be available for distribution. Up to the present, however, no relief has been afforded to these poor people and their case is really urgent. They have lost the turf crop which was their main means of support, as they were in the habit of cutting turf and vending, it in the neighbouring towns and to the farmers outside. They have, in addition, lost the corn and hay crops owing to the flooding of the Blackwater River. I do not charge the Minister or his officials with any intention of holding up the Act, but I say that increased activity is urgently needed so that such bodies of tenants as those which I have cited may be afforded the benefits of the Act.

Mr. SHAW

I am sorry that a Deputy from Longford and Westmeath has introduced this motion, because I know the work which the Land Commission has done, particularly in Westmeath, and I am aware of the fact that 30,000 acres have been inspected in Counties Westmeath and Longford, of which 2,500 have actually been acquired, and I am also aware that before New Year's Day 800 acres will be divided amongst the people. There are large numbers of people who seem to think that division of land simply means an inspector going to an estate one day and having the land divided within a week. I am aware of the great difficulty to which the Land Commission have been put in connection with tracing owners who reside in England, and of other great difficulties in acquiring those lands. I am also aware that the Land Commission inspectors are working overtime very considerably. and, so far as Co. Westmeath is concemed, I have no complaint whatever. On the contrary, I congratulate the Land Commission upon the magnificent work which it has done there. Longford may not have done quite so well, but at the same time 30,000 acres have been imported upon, and every day that passes means that some of that land has been acquired and will be divided in the near future. Deputy Lyons should know that Rome was not built in a day, and he ought to wait a little while longer.

Mr. SEARS

I think that this motion of Deputy Lyons will do good, not that I approve of all he says. I approve, however, of his statement that he was sure that the Minister for Agriculture would have a good reply. The Minister was down in Mayo recently and met face to face the people who are suffering, and in every case they were satisfied with the statements he made. I am sure that he will also give a satisfactory explanation to-day, and for that reason I welcome the motion as giving him an opportunity for, repeating the statements he made there.

Mr. T. O'CONNELL

Save us from that.

Mr. SEARS

There is undoubtedly a great deal of impatience in the country on this question of the division of land, and it is very natural, considering how the people are situated. Even if the years were good people would have enough to do to eke out a living on those small holdings, but when we consider how bad both this and last year were from the point of view of farmers, we can understand how their impatience is intensified. It is very difficult to persuade them, as Deputy-Shaw pointed out, that this division of land cannot take place immediately, but it is a matter of life and death to them. Their hopes began to rise when the Dáil first met, and these hopes were further increased when the Land Act was passed. They are in a very difficult position. That is looldng at it from their point of view, and anyone who knows the situation cannot but sympathise with them and their impatience. I know very well that there is another point of view, and any Deputy can easily picture for himself the enormous difficulties of acquiring these ranches by ascertaining their rental and finding out all about title, how many people want increased holdings, and how much laud is available for division. It is a tremendous problem, but it must be accelerated as quickly as possible.

If the Minister for Agriculture has not sufficient inspectors or sufficient staff he must increase the number. The division of the ranches even in one county would tax the resources of his present staff, and he must make up hia mind to treble and even quadruple his staff, as people are getting impatient and our opponents are making political use of the delay, unavoidable though it may be, by raising doubts in the minds of these poor people, and they would give little consideration to any explanation as to the cause of any legitimate delay. I welcome the motion because it will give the Minister another opportunity to state the exact position and to give the assurances that are necessary and that will be accepted now as before. At the same time, I would urge, as we all urge, upon him to do his best to accelerate the division of land and leave no stone unturned to carry it out as quickly as it is humanly possible to do.

Mr. LYONS

In explanation of Deputy Shaw's remark, I desire to point out that I was not giving notice on be half of Longford and Westmeath, but on behalf of all the people of the Saorstát. I do not believe in catering for the classes and not for the masses.

Mr. SHAW

Then you agree that the people of Westmeath are well catered for?

Mr. LYONS

I am going to see that they get their portion when the land is divided.

Mr. McKENNA

I am delighted to be privileged to speak on an important motion like this, in view of the fact that a generation of Irishmen has grown up since I stood on my first platform in defence of the policy which the Government are now trying to have carried into effect. Like the previous speakers. I have not much fault to find with the Land Commission up to the present. I have a very long experience of the working of the various Land Acts, and I know the difficulties with which the Minister and his staff have to contend.

There are innumerable difficulties, and we all know that for the past few years due to the turmoil and disturbance in the country that not alone his Department but every Department of State was topsy-turvy, due to the unfortunate strife between the different sections in our country. However, I am glad to say from my experience of the various Departmeilts that the Land Commission is at present in ship-shape and that the Estates Commissioners, so far as I know, enjoy the confidence and esteem of the people. In the past there was a belief, and a just belief, in the minds of the people, that under the British regime a number of the officials and inspectors and the Commissioners were political partisans and not in sympathy with the aspirations of the people.

Such is not the case now, and there is a sign that Ireland is to be governed at last iii the various Departments of State by men of Irish ideas. These are a few aspects of the question and I think Deputy Lyons's motion, as Deputy Sears has said, will serve a useful purpose in helping to direct the attention of the Minister to them. One is the case of lands taken over by trustees and bought by monies advanced through the Land Bank. I want the Minister to make some statement as to what he proposes to do in those eases. Some months tgfl Deputy Davin asked the Minister for Lands and Agriculture

"If he could state the approximate date when the Land Commission would be in a position to take over Land Bank estates in Offaly area, whether the arrears of annuity due to the National Land Bank can or will be paid out of the security deposit and the balance returned to the societies; and if holdings will be vested in the occupiers or societies on the appointed day in any cases where Land Bank estates have been previously or already divided."

The Minister for Lands and Agriculture stated in reply:—

"Having regard to the procedure necessary under the Act, it is not possible to state when the lands purchased by societies or bodies of trustees by means of advances made by the National Land Bank will be vested in the Land Commission under Part III. of the Land Act, but the cases will be dealt with by the Commission as expeditiously as possible. The arrears due to the bank will, under Section 52 of the Act, be included in the price. The deposit must be handed over to the Land Commission and will be dealt with then as provided by Section 53 of the Act. That is to say, they have discretion either to retain or refund it. On the appointed day the lands will vest in the Land Commission, who will then, under Section 55, have to make inquiries as to how the lands have been managed by each society, and if they are satisfied that the conditions of the section have been fulfilled, they will vest the land in the society. In other cases where these statutory conditions have not been fulfilled the Land Commission will have to deal with the lands under the second sub-section of this section."

Later, I asked a question of the Minister as to how much land was bought through money advanced by this Land Bank, and he told me roughly about 18,000 acres. An Act was paused in this Dáil — I was not here when it was passedtaking over the liabilities of the Land Act. You have the case where a number of trustees in districts purchased lands in a manner similar to the purchase of lands by advances made by the National Land Bank. So far as I can gather from information received from the Minister and his Department, the Land Commission will take over these lands at a price which they think them worth, and if there is any deficit between the price paid by the purchasers and the price offered by the Land Commission, the trustees or societies or other guarantors will have to suffer loss, but in the Land Bank cases I understand they will have to suffer no loss, so far as my reading goes. I would like enlightenment on that.

People say why should one section of the community be indemnified against loss under this Act and another section not. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. You put, and I would like to call the Minister's attention to this, the Land Commission in a very awkward position sometimes about some of those cases. During the trouble the Republican Government set up a sort of Land Commission of their own. They actually had judges who tried cases and fixed the prices of land. A legal man, or some ex-land official, was sent down to fix the price of the land, and the judge awarded that price to the owner. Those acts were nullified in the Dáil by another Act of Parliament, and these lands were afterwards and are now being offered to the Estates Commissioners. I know several cases like that. In one case I know that the man was offered between £9,000 and £10,000 for the farm, the price awarded by the person who went down to settle the case. The Land Commission, afterwards sent down one of their men, and his price for the farm was £4,000.

A lot of friction has arisen over that. You have cases where, in order to evade the Land Act of 1909 the landlords set up what were known as bogus tenancies. I think that any tenancies created after the 30th September, 1909, were counted in the meaning of the Act of 1909 as bogus tenancies. The landlords kept on the graziers to hold the lands, and they created these bogus tenancies. These tenancies were legalised under the Act of 1923. They came under the heading of future tenants, and I quite agree that it was a difficult thing for the Minister, for they were not too numerous to exclude them, and he had to let them in. I would like the Land Commission, when taking up those estates, to remember that their interests were very little, for they were a gift to these people in order to gain the Land Act of 1909. For that reason I do not think they are entitled to as big a price as men in whose families the lands have been for a great many years.

Another aspect of the case I would like the Minister to deal with is this question of congestion. I would like to know what is the intention of the Land Commission with regard to the division of lands. In the past this was a serious problem, and I think the Minister has upon his shoulders a greater responsibility than any other Minister in undertaking this task, which is a huge one, and he should receive every support. It is very hard to please the people of the country, and in dealing with this question the Minister will want the cooperation, support, and sympathy of all parties in the Dáil if the question is to be dealt with in a manner satisfactory to the various interests concerned. Nine counties are scheduled as congested districts, and the people in these congested districts eke out a very miserable existence. I know most of the congested counties, and I saw them in a very bad state, especially in the West of Ireland, about 25 years ago. Undoubtedly, the Congested Districts Board did make a great transformation in these districts.

What does the Minister propose to do now with regard to the land problem in the West? You have in Connaught, and other areas like Gonnaught, big land owners living in the most congested parts. It is the intention of the government to acquire these lands from graziers or big farmers so as to relieve the congests in these particular areas, or is it the intention of the Land Commission to migrate them into other counties where there are lands available for these congests? If it is the intention to migrate them, I would advise the Minister to be very cautious, because in some counties not scheduled as congested there are many uneconomic holders. I think the people who are looking across the ditches on those broad acres will feel very sore and aggrieved if the local needs and requirements are not provided for before anybody is brought in from an outside area. That is the position, and for that reason both Deputy Shaw and myself have tried, and I think it would be a good thing if other Deputies would do the same, to get a list of the uneconomic holders in each district, and send that list to the Land Commission, and let it be put on the files, and the inspector who goes down to inspect these various estates can inquire into the merits and demerits of each case. That would simplify matters, and it would be helpful to the Land Commission. There is also come criticism, or a lot of disapappointment, about some of these fee farm grants.

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE

The Deputy will not be in order in discussing that. We are not discussing the Land Act, but only the delay of putting the terms of the Land Act into operation.

Mr. McKENNA

Yes, but I think the fee farm grants come in under the working of the Land Act. I have just briefly touched on these in order to call the Minister's attention to the matter so that he will be able to deal with it in a satisfactory manner.

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE

It is not in order on this motion.

Mr. MORRISSEY

Do not fee farm grant lands come under the provisions of the 1923 Act?

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE

We are not discussing the 1923 Act; We are discussing the delay in putting the terms of the 1923 Act into operation.

Mr. WILSON

Would not the Deputy be quite in order in saying there is a delay in dealing with fee farm lands a delay on the part of the Land Commission in affording facilities to these people to buy out their holdings?

Mr. WHITE

The Minister yesterday invited criticism of every description.

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE

But criticism that is out of order should not be allowed. I think I have allowed Deputy McKenna a good deal of latitude already.

Mr. MORRISSEY

I would submit that any failure on behalf of the Land Commission to put the provisions of the Land Act into operation is covered by this-motion. I think Deputy McKenna is quite in order.

Mr. McKENNA

I bow to your ruling; I hope what I have said on the subject is sufficient. I think we are all anxious, and I am sure nobody is more anxious than the Minister, that immediate steps should be taken where the provisions of the Act are not being complied with to set to work at dividing these lands. We all see that there are a great many people leaving our country, and if the regulations regarding emigration were not so strict there would be more, because of the great unemployment that exists in all parts of the State, and the natural tendency of the people is to get out of it. In the past we said that it was not emigration but transportation. We do not want that system to continue under a native Parliament. We are anxious to see people who were born in the country remaining in it. We believe that we ought to try to pull together, to try to develop the industrial resources of the country to the fullest extent, and that there is plenty of room for all of us.

In 1851 the population of the country was over 8,000,000, and from 1851 to 1911 no less than 4,218,016 Irish men and women left their native land. I do not think on the face of God's earth that any other country can point to such a drain on the people as in the country of which we are citizens, and I hope that this Act will do something to icmcdy that state of affairs. I consider it is a great Act, and without going into controversial matters, or politics if you like, I think that the Treaty, if it gave to the people no other power than to sol up a legislature which would finally dispose of the land question, would have induced me anyhow to take the action which the majority of the representatives of the Irish people took in accepting the Treaty. It was a very sad state of affairs to see the depopulation, emigration and conquest by famine, fire and sword that the people had to go through for the last fifty years. I hope that is finished, and as one who never would have been in the Dáil, or would never have entered the stormy sea of Irish politics but for this question, I am delighted to see that our native Government has tackled the problem in such a fashion, and I believe that the Act, when its terms are carried out, will finally dispose of it to the satisfaction of the entire country.

Mr. MULVANY

I am pleased that this matter has been raised by Deputy Lyons. This matter of the divison of the land is one to which I have always given a good deal of time and attention; the division of the ranches amongst uneconomic holders and landless men, and the restoration of the evicted tenants is a matter which has always appealed to me. We have the 1923 Land Act in operation for the last eighteen months. The Act contains provisions for the restoration of evicted tenants, to make uneconomic holders economic, and to give land to landless men who are able and willing to work it. We have in the constituency that I represent, Co. Meath, forty-two live branches of the Back to the Land Association, with a county executive. I have, on various occasions within the last five or six months attended meetings of these different branches. These branches are live, active branches in every ease, with a big membership. Everywhere I go the question is put to me: "Why the delay; why is something not done? We have not as yet seen one ranch divided in the County Meath." I am not here to say one word in condemnation or denunciation of the Minister or Ills Department. I believe he has his hands full and I am sure that he is doing his best.

But after a year and a half of the existence of this Land Act, I think we might now at least expect some results. and the sooner we have some results the better. I know that amongst those members of the Back to the Land-Association there is growing a great feeling of unrest and discontent, and the sooner they see that the Minister is in earnest, that the Land Gommisaion and its officials are in earnest in carrying out the provisions of the Act, the better for the peace of the district. It is certain, and I think every Deputy will admit it, that we are overdosed with promises in this country. We have often heard it said that there is a certain place to which there is a broad road which is paved with unfulfilled promises, and a place where water would realise a fine price. I am sure that the Minister will give us a promise this evening and I hope that it will be one that will not be another paving stone in this particular road.

Mr. HEFFERNAN

My particular idea in taking part in this debate is rather to get information from the Minister, and I would suggest in connection with that, that it might be worthy of the consideration of the Minister that he should come here and tell us what he is doing with regard to the Land Act, rather than that we should have to get our knowledge from the reports of election speeches in the papers. The whole working of the Act is to a certain extent a blank, and we know very little about it except what we can glean from local sources. I want to deal with it from a different angle from that taken up by other Deputies. I want to refer to the ordinary unpurchased tenants who come under the 1923 Act, and I would like to learn from the Minister if any estates have yet been vested in the tenants and, if not, when will some be vested? Does this depend on the payment of compounded arrears of rent, and if so, does the Minister think he will be able to get any of these arrears of rent within a reasonable time? As the Land Act stands I believe the tennants are bound, where they owe three years', rent, to pay two and a half years', and there is a possibility of getting a hair year's rent added to the purchase money.

I have always held that the real flaw in the Land Act was the question of arrears of rent, and I think it was a very unwise thing to pass an Act which demanded from the tenants two and a half years rent in a year, less the ordinary abatement of 25 percent. I believe that there are many tenants who are not in a position to pay this. It is hardly necessary to emphasise the reasons. In portions of the country tenants live in very disturbed places, and they have very little opportunity of making their business pay. In my own county they suffered extreme losses from circumstances for which the Minister had no responsibility. I refer to the seizure of the creameries and the injury to the farmers owing to the loss of their milk. The point is this: that owing to those losses the farmers are not able to pay their compounded arrears of rent, and in order to get them to pay in full the vesting of the land is held up, and for that reason the Act is delayed. I would suggest that it is time that an amending Act was brought in.

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE

The Deputy cannot discuss that on this motion.

Mr. HEFFERNAN

My point is that until an amending Act is brought in there will be delay, that the Act cannot be put into force in full. Now, there is the question of the fixation of the annuities for the lands of non-judicial holders. I have not heard that Land Commissioners have come to any land that I know of for the purpose of fixing the annuity, and until such is done, or until mutual agreements are arrived at between the landlords and the tenants. the Act cannot come into force. I would suggest that a certain amount of speeding up is necessary with regard to that. In connection with the acquisition of land for the purpose of division. I think it is time that the House had more definite information as to what is being done and as to how the work is being carried out. As I understand it, when an estate is being divided, Land Commissioners will be sent down with full powers, and the division of the I estate will lie with these particular I commissioners. While I may have a good deal of confidence in them, and while they may be well qualified for the work. The fact remains that these men are strangers to the district, and I think that in view of the enormous quantity of land that is to be divided, it in unwise that the power to select the men who are to be the tenants of the land should be in the hands of one or two men who are unknown to the district and who do not know the people. Their sources of information are limited, and they may very easily be led astray.

I think that something should be done in the way of setting up committees or seeing that some accurate source of information is available, so that knowledge of the men who are applying for the land may be obtained. I have had several — I might say numberless — applications from men who are looking for land, all classes of men, uneconomic holders, evicted tenants, and in some cases landless men. I have sent in recommendations to the Land Commission in cases where I consider these men were suitable, but I have not the slightest hesitation in saying that my recommendations are not used. I have not been consulted, and I do not see any prospect of being consulted, as to men who would be suitable to get land. I believe that any Deputy who represents the people of his constituency, as I presume we all do, should be consulted with regard to the division of land. Somebody who knows something about I the conditions of the country will have to be consulted, because a strange commissioner will not be in a position to select the best men. Some scheme will have to be devised in view of the great quantity of land to be divided. I would like to know from the Minister if he has any special formula in connection with this matter, if any particular class of men have first claim. because I maintain that evicted tenants should have first claim, and that they should, if possible, have first claim to the land from which they were evicted.

I never heard it stated that they have first claim. There are certain estates from which men were evicted a considerable time ago, in some cases 70 or 80 years ago. Where you could get one or two representatives of the family that was evicted from that particular land, that is to say, men who would be fit and capable of managing it, I think they should get a portion of it. I may tell the Minister that if something is not done in the case of men whose ancestors were evicted, there will be friction, and perhaps crime, in certain parts of the country. I am not very keen on the speeding up of this division of land. I think there should not be any reckless of careless speeding up.

It would be much better to have ten men put on land who would make a good use of it, and who, in twenty years' time, will be found working it successfully and economically, than to have fifty bad men put on land who would let it out in grazing and only grow hay on it. Probably in five years' time you would find these men trying to dispose of the land altogether. Hence I say that in the selection of the men for land the greatest possible precaution should be taken to see that only suitable men, that is to say, men capable of managing land, will be selected. I do not sec how that can be done under the present system, and I am inclined to think that some other system will have to be devised if suitable men are to be placed on the land. In connection with the speeding up of the division of land, there is a point to which I would call the Minister's special attention. It is this: That the division of land in a wholesale fashion cannot be successful unless it is combined with some system of agricultural credit. If you put men on land who have no capital they will not naturally, be able to work it, and the result will be that they will be obliged to dispose of it in a very short time. That is what will happen if there is an indiscriminate giving of land to men who have no capital and who are not in a position to finance themselves.

Mr. LYONS

On a point of order, I desire to say that I put down this motion for the purpose of finding out the cause of the delay that is taking place in carrying out the provisions of the Land Act. I did not put down the motion for the purpose of ascertaining who the persons are that are entitled to land. I hold that a landless man has as much right to land as anybody else.

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE

The Deputy should keep to the motion before the Dáil.

Mr. HEFFERNAN

I am sorry if I exceeded the rules of order, but in I answer to Deputy Lyons I might say that I make no distinction with regard to landless men or uneconomic holders. What I did say was that before-any landless men or uneconomic holders are considered, the genuine evicted tenants ought to get first claim.

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE

A number of points have been brought to the attention of the Minister, and so that he may have time to reply, I would suggest that Deputies should be brief in any remarks they have to make, because the debate on this motion cannot go beyond five o 'clock.

Mr. WHITE

I suggest that my motion should be taken with the one moved by Deputy Lyons. If the Minister would reply to both, it would save a good deal of time. I may say that I am not going to give away my case by joining in the compliments offered by other Deputies to the Minister for Lands and Agriculture and the Land Commission. My object in putting down this motion is to call attention to the indiscriminate issue of processes through Donegal for payments in lieu of rent. I raised this question before but got very little satisfaction. I was promised that an inquiry would be made into the matter.

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE

I cannot allow this motion to be discussed now.

Mr. WHITE

I understood that the Minister gave his assent to my moving the motion now.

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE

The Minister has no say in the matter.

Mr. M. DOYLE

I wish to join with Deputy Heffernan in pressing for the speedy buying up of the many estates on which there are unpurchased tenants throughout the country. Enough has been said, I think, about speeding up the division of the ranches. There is another phase of the question which is possibly, I think, a larger one than the other, and that is the one concerning the very many non-purchased estates that we have in the Saorstát. With Deputy Heffernan I would ask the Minister for Lands and Agriculture if any single estate in the Saorstát has yet been vested in the tenants. In cases where court rents have been fixed, there is no need for delay in getting on with this work if you have the landlord's title. Where that is satisfactory, and where court rents have been fixed, I do not see why any delay should be incurred at all. The delay means that these tenants are deprived of a ten per cent. reduction.

In my opinion the vast body of unpurchased tenants that we have throughout the country should have the first consideration of the Minister. It was for these people that the Land Act was mainly passed. A delay extending over years has taken place in their cases, and even now after the Land Act has been passed there is no sign that they are going to reap the full benefit of the provisions of that Act. They are still only reaping a reduction of 25 per cent. I do not see why the Land Commission should not settle the cases of these people at once. I ask the Minister to look into the cases of these struggling tenants. They have been paying rent for years that they should not have been paying and they have been very hard hit. Their cases do not call for any division of land. They are practically settled except where no rents were fixed by the courts. All that is needed is to fix the rents and name the "appointed day." There is nothing, in my opinion, that would give such satisfaction to the general bulk of the people of the country than the naming of the "appointed day" on a few estates.

Mr. HALL

I have very little grievance against the Land Commission. I cannot charge that body with inactivity as I am aware they have been working fairly well for some time past. I am aware, however, that in the case of estates inspected by officials of the Land Commission about seven months ago no announcement has yet been made as a result of their inspections, and that is causing a good deal of disappointment. The uneconomic holders and the congests in the localities around these estates which were inspected have so far got no idea as to the intentions of the Land Commission, but I take it that the Land Commission is endeavouring to deal with the land question in a broad way and not in a parochial way.

I know that the Land Commission, so far as my constituency is concerned, has made inspections of numerous estates. In fact, on some of the estates inspectors have been down three or four times, and I am also able to state that offers have been made to the owners of land in my constituency by the Land Commission. There is one thing that I feel is the cause of delay, and that is what I might describe as the lack of energy of the Land Commission in not forcing the owners of the landed property of the country to give the necessary information as required according to the 1923 Land Act. I can state definitely that for the past six or seven or eight months there is an estate in my constituency in connection with which I have been in communication with the Irish Land Commission, to see that a tenant who was evicted, or whose parents were evicted some 50 years ago, would be reinstated, and on each occasion that I communicated with the Land Commission, I got the reply that the necessary information had not been received from the owner of the property. That is a state of affairs that should not continue for seven or eight months.

I think that a month is quite sufficient to get this information, and if the owner of the property fails to give the necessary information to the Land Commission, the machinery of the law should be made to operate against him. The demand of the people at the present moment for the division of the land is very great and there is no need for me to emphasise a matter which Deputy Mulvany has already referred to—the existence of a powerful organisation in both his constituency and mine. It is not the number of branches that counts. Probably the Minister for Lands and Agriculture may say that there are half a dozen in one district and twelve in another, but I can give the sum total of it, and I can say that from the latest return there are over 5,000 members in one county, all uneconomic holders and landless men, all the sons of people who have been deprived of their lands in darker days, and who to-day look forward to the 1923 Land Act to be put back in their proper place as the owners of the soil of their fathers and forefathers.

I hope that the Minister will endeavour to see that this machinery for the acquisition and division of untenanted lands of Ireland will get more immediate and careful consideration in future with a view to expediting the intentions of the Land Act of 1923. The Minister probably when he gets up to reply will tell us that the Minister for Finance has something to do with the matter, or probably on the other hand he will say for himself that there are not funds available. Whether we can rely on Press reports or not—sometimes we do have to rely on them—a statement was made by the Minister in the West of Ireland not very long ago, in which he said that the Government intended to allocate 33 million pounds for the acquisition and division of land.

MINISTER for LANDS and AGRICULTURE

I do not think I said that, or that I was reported as saying that. What I said, and what I was reported as saying, was that it would take about 33 millions to complete land purchase.

Mr. HALL

As reported in the Press, and as I read it, the Minister said it was the intention of the Government to allocate 33 million pounds for the acquisition of land. I am surprised he did not contradict that if it were not true.

MINISTER for LANDS and AGRICULTURE

It really amounts to the same thing.

Mr. HALL

You said it was the intention of the Government to use the 33 millions for the acquisition of land. However, that is not the thing I want to get at. There is no use in saying you are pushing forward the provisions of the Land Act by making promises to the people like that on an open platform. These are not the things that are going to improve or better the position of the unfortunate people who are waiting for development in the line of the acquisition and division of the lands in accordance with the provisions of the 1923 Act. All these promises give people food for thought, and it also gives people who are agitating for years and years for the division and the acquisition of the lands food for resenting delay, and I may state, as some other Deputies have stated here, that the people in general are not at all satisfied at the very great delay that is taking place in carrying out the very many provisions of the Land Act that the small farmer, uneconomic holder and landless people expected to be carried out in a much shorter time. There is no use in saying we are progressing or speeding up this particular item of great national importance, the division of the land, or any of the other provisions contained in the 1923 Land Act, and getting up and stating on a public platform that there is so much money, or that it is the intention of the Government to utilise so much money for the acquisition and division of land, if we are not prepared to give full force and effect to these statements.

I think this House should be the first to be acquainted with that. I discovered the other morning in the Press where another matter was mentioned in the British House of Commons, that the British Parliament were prepared to guarantee something like 30 millions to the Irish Free State for the purchase of land within the Saorstát. Probably that is the cause of the delay. Probably the Minister for Lands and Agriculture has been waiting until the British House of Commons took this line of action. Probably it is on the expectation of the result of the action taken the other day by the members of the House of Commons or the British Minister for Finance that the Minister made his promise when he was down in Mayo. All these promises would amount to nothing if the British House of Commons did not act as it has acted. I do not believe in making promises to the people that cannot be, at the moment of making them, made with a thorough idea that these promises can be fulfilled. I do not believe in camouflaging the matter in the slightest. It is not good enough, because, as I said before, if you make a promise, and the promise is not carried out, it gives the people food for thought, food for argument, and in the end probably food for revolution.

If we are going to have trouble, in agrarian matters, it will be the most serious trouble that the nation was ever confronted with. It has been so always, because you will have 75 per cent. of the people of Ireland involved in such a revolution. In regard to the case quoted by Deputy Colohan when he was speaking of the Aylmer estate near Maynooth, he stated this ranch was held on the 11 months' system for a number of years by certain people, and that the Land Commission in the end thought it well to make them tenants. Is that state of affairs going to continue throughout the length and breadth of the country? If that is so, there is no necessity to stand up here and speak at all in the interests of the uneconomic holders or of the landless men.

I am not familiar with the Aylmer estate, but I rely on the statement made by Deputy Colohan here to-night, and I am prepared to believe that what he has stated is quite true because these ranchers are taking possession of the property. By allowing them to do so you are defeating the provisions of the Land Act, and there and then putting an end to what we are seeking to have done here tonight, the speeding up of the provisions of the Land Act of 1923. I do not want to detain the Dáil very much longer, but I would say that if the Minister is serious in wishing the agricultural community of the Saorstát to develop, and the agricultural industry to develop, he must put the provisions of the Land Act into operation more speedily than he has been doing in the past. I have sympathy with the arguments of Deputy Wilson and with the arguments of every Deputy in relation to the failure of the Land Commission or the Minister for Lands and Agriculture to see that the provisions of the Land Act are put into operation more speedily.

While I do pay tribute to the Land Commission for their activity in the inspection of lands I do not believe that 18 months should be lost in those formalities of inspection and making offers. My opinion is, if the owners of those large ranches, such as exist in my constituency of 3,000 acres, did not supply the necessary information to the Land Commission, the law should be put into operation to make them do so. We have congestion in North Meath as well as Cavan, and other places mentioned the other day, and I trust, in the interests of the development of the industrial resources of this country, that the Minister will speed up the operation of the 1923 Land Act.

Mr. NALLY

I wish to call attention to the conditions in County Mayo. There are 7,000 acres of land in that county for the past 12 years in the various estates. You have the Clifford estate, the Lynch-Blosse estate, the Kelly estate, the Palmer estate, the Fitzgerald and Lord Sligo and Oranmore estate, but no attempt was made to divide up those lands during that period. They are letting them every year and making a profit. If that is going to continue much longer I can assure the Minister and this House the tenants will take the matter into their own hands, as they are tired and disgusted with those delays.

MINISTER for LANDS and AGRICULTURE

Every Deputy has taken the precaution to say beforehand what I would probably say. Various reasons have been given for the alleged delay. Deputy Lyons mentioned money and Deputy Hall suspects that that is the reason also. I cannot admit that there has been any delay. Here are the figures. In a normal year before the passing of the Land Act of 1923, the average sales put through by the Land Commission could be valued at £3,000,000. That is the average. The Land Act was passed in August, 1923, and was given to the Land Commission to administer in September, that is one year and three months ago. Since then something over £3,000,000 worth of pending sales have been disposed of out of a total of £8,000,000 taken over. That is No. 1. No. 2 is that £1,056,000 worth of land has been gazetted or provisionally vested under the 1923 Act. There is close on £1,000,000 vested. With regard to untenanted land, there is about £650,000 worth.

Mr. JOHNSON

As this is a matter which is supposed to interest the farmers, and as none of them is here the Minister should delay his reply out of deference to their interest in the matter.

Mr. J. COSGRAVE

This is Deputy Lyons's motion, and he is not a farmer.

MINISTER for LANDS and AGRICULTURE

In deference to Deputy Lyons I will give the figures. The price has been fixed, agreed or proposed in respect of £650,000 worth of untenanted land. Either two or three estates have been actually divided. That is a total of £4,650,000 worth of land, of which £1,650,000 is under the 1923 Act.

Mr. LYONS

Where have those estates been divided?

MINISTER for LANDS and AGRICULTURE

I cannot say at the moment. There are at least 70,000 tenancies vested in the owners under the 1923 Act. There is something like £70,000 worth of untenanted land vested in the Land Commission under the 1923 Act. £300,000 worth of land has been inspected. The price has been agreed, and £400,000 worth of land has been inspected, and the price has been proposed. Speaking in terms of acquisition and division of land alone, the average work for the Land Commission is £3,000,000. The work for the last year and three months has been as follows:—£3,000,000 out of £8,000,000 have been disposed of as well as taken over. The gazetting was actually £1,059,562 worth of tenanted land under the Land Act of 1923. In addition you had the fixing of the price, or an agreement for fixing of the price, or a proposal for price in the case of £600,000 worth of land.

Take those figures and see where the delay has been. That is land purchase. The Land Commission has dealt with £4,600,000 worth as against £3,000,000 under ordinary circumstances. In addition, the Land Commission this year had to arrange for a reduction in rent of 25 per cent. for about 100,000 tenants left unpurchased. That was an extremely difficult task in view of the fact that it had to be done accurately. The rent had to be fixed accurately, and it was an extremely difficult task owing to the atmosphere in which most people thought that the proper way to deal with communications from the Government was to ignore them. That work has been done in respect of every single tenant. In addition to that, practically all the preliminary work in connection with getting exact particulars as to the areas and conditions generally of the various tenanted estates to be purchased under the Act has been done. In addition to that, all arrears of land purchase annuities amounting to over £1,000,000 had to be dealt with in the latter half of 1923 and the beginning of 1924.

The arrears of land purchase annuities are now reduced to normal dimensions. Those are five or six facts in connection with what has been done this year. £4,000,000 worth of land has been disposed of, and a reduction has been arranged for every tenant left unpurchased by twenty-five per cent., arranged with sufficient accuracy to enable all purchase money to be fixed. The preliminary regulations, rules, etc., in connection with the Act of 1923 are practically completed. It was necessary to make these regulations accurately and to draft forms accurately. The compulsory provisions of the Act were automatic. It was not likely that a landlord or a tenant would endeavour to evade the Act by claiming that the Land Commission had no jurisdiction to take the land. It was much more likely in the circumstances that anybody, whether he be tenant or landlord, who wished to evade the automatic provisions of the Act, would challenge the procedure on the ground that a certain notice was wrong, or served irregularly. For that reason is was impossible for the Land Commission to carry through a sale until practically everything was completed.

For that reason it was necessary to prepare the notices and prepare the procedure with absolute accuracy. That has been done. As I said, the arrears problem has been dealt with and reduced to normal dimensions. In view of these facts, I think it is inaccurate, as some Deputies have said, to suggest that there has been any delay on the part of the Land Commission. The Land Commission has done this year about twice as much work as was done in a normal year by the Land Commission and the Congested Districts Board. Personally, I have nothing but gratitude for the loyalty, efficiency and energy of the Land Commission in this matter.

I agree that the acquisition and subdivision of land is very necessary and very important. I am not going, as some Deputies do, to blame the Minister for Finance on the question of staff. There was sufficient staff. It was an indoor and not an outdoor staff that was required for a lot of this work. Now that the work has been done an outdoor staff is required and is being obtained. As the preliminary work has been done land purchase can proceed in future with even greater expedition than in the past. I am not going to accept the suggestion that local committees should be formed so as to get the land. That work must be left to the Land Commission and to Land Commission officials. They are the best judges. The Land Commission is not constituted for the purpose of suiting the political exigencies of any party, and for that reason I think it would be impossible to set up these local committees. I am afraid they would hardly achieve the result the Deputy desires.

Mr. HEFFERNAN

Is the Minister prepared to say that these men have sufficient information to divide the land amongst the proper people?

MINISTER for LANDS and AGRICULTURE

Certainly.

Mr. HEFFERNAN

How do they get it?

MINISTER for LANDS and AGRICULTURE

The Land Commission has already divided £131,000,000 worth of land. There is absolutely no difficulty in getting local information in an area in which there is congestion. The valuation will show that.

Mr. WHITE

Is it the parish priest?

MINISTER for LANDS and AGRICULTURE

From the poor law valuation. With regard to Land Bank societies, they present certain difficulties. These things were a little irregular with regard to title, and it was rather difficult to get full particulars in regard to these societies. However, the titles are now investigated for, I should say, more than half, and notices under Section 51 are published in the case of eleven societies. With regard to land bought by committees, I think that practically every estate bought by a committee in the country has been inspected.

Deputy Cosgrave asked me a question, whether the land would be divided as soon as the estate is vested. It certainly will, and the Land Commission policy is that it should be divided, even if it is impossible to make improvements, or make fences until a later date. Various estates were mentioned —the Verschoyle estate, the Dobb estate, and some cases were quoted by Deputy Colohan. The Land Commission, in fact, has done twice as much in one year and three months as was done in normal years. The complaint might as well be made that all the work under the 1923 Act has not been completed, as the complaint that a particular estate, in a particular constituency, has not yet been dealt with.

What Deputy Conlan says about the Verschoyle estate applies, I should say, to every other estate, in every constituency, not divided. Either the Land Commission should have completed land purchase in one year and three months, or, on the other hand, if we cannot expect that, there must be some estates not yet acquired. Every Deputy thinks his is the one particular case that is an extremely bad one. Business cannot be done on those lines. The Land Commission officials could not be hopping from one county into another. Undoubtedly, to deal with these estates now they must face the work on some fixed plan until land purchase is absolutely completed. It will take, I should say, seven or eight years. There will be some estates undealt with. The day the last estate is acquired, completed, and divided, no Deputy will be in a position to get up in the Dáil and say: "There is an estate in my county that should be taken over." Until that day comes complaints will be made. I claim, and I think most Deputies will agree, that the Land Commission has been working very hard and with all possible expedition.

There was a suggestion here that if there was not an improvement there would be such a land agitation as has never occurred in the history of Ireland. That does not make my flesh creep one bit. We had to face a great many agitations from unreasonable people who wanted to take the law into their own hands, and if the situation occurs again we will deal with it. I do not know what Deputies views are in these matters, but I hold that I should tell the truth even when it is not popular in a particular place. I know every other Deputy in the Dáil only makes public statements when he is in a position to tell the exact truth. My point of view is that I ought to tell the truth, even though it happens to be unpopular in particular places.

I stated in Mayo that it would take £30,000,000 to complete land purchase. That is a fact. I stated in Mayo that it would be the policy of the Land Commission or the Ministry of Lands and Agriculture to see to it that congests who had first claim would be dealt with, even if they had to be taken outside the congested districts. I repeat that here. I repeated it in some other parts of the country where it was not quite so acceptable.

Mr. JOHNSON

Was it acceptable in Mayo?

MINISTER for LANDS and AGRICULTURE

It was.

Mr. WHITE

I hope you will find room in Westmeath for 1,000 men from Donegal who are congests.

MINISTER for LANDS and AGRICULTURE

I think these are the various points that remain of the matters that were raised.

Mr. LYONS

The Minister has not replied to one particular question I put to him. Is it the intention, next year, or before the end of next year, to distribute the lands already in possession of the Land Commission? I want, if possible, to get an answer to that question from the Minister. If he gives me satisfaction in that I would be inclined to withdraw the motion, and to have the matter finished this evening. I would ask the Minister to say when it is likely that this land will be handed over to the people.

MINISTER for LANDS and AGRICULTURE

The land will be divided as fast as it is acquired, without any unnecessary delay. That is the policy of the Land Commission. I cannot give any more definite undertaking.

Mr. LYONS

Can you say that the land now in the possession of the Land Commission will be handed over before the end of 1925?

MINISTER for LANDS and AGRICULTURE

The Land Commission have about £5,000,000 worth of pending sales in their possession, and very nearly £1,000,000 under the 1923 Act. I could not give any undertaking that every acre of that land would be handed over at the end of next year.

Mr. LYONS

I think I have six minutes more.

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE

This motion was to have concluded at 5 o'clock.

Mr. LYONS

Deputy Shaw said that 800 acres of land were about to be divided in Westmeath. There are over 30,000 acres of available land in Westmeath. I want to get from the Minister something definite as to when the lands in the hands of the Land Commission will be divided. It is no good saying that the matter will be expedited. We are tired of hearing that. I quite agree that the Land Commission have done a lot of work for the past year, much more work than they did before, and than they have been accustomed to do, but, naturally, that is owing to our having an Irish Government.

Mr. COLOHAN

Would the Minister give us an assurance that the uneconomic holders would be considered before the grazing ranchers? I think that question deserves some sort of a straight answer.

MINISTER for LANDS and AGRICULTURE

The Deputy quoted a case of what he called a grazing tenant. The decision of the Land Commission is clear on that. They can sell to future tenants, but only to tenants who may be either present or future tenants. But they can sell only to tenants. On the other hand, they can acquire lands for the relief of congests in the order I have already mentioned. When the Deputy speaks of a grazing tenant he is using a term I do not understand. If a tenant is a future tenant they must sell to him, unless they require the land for congests, and there is no other land available. Otherwise they must sell to a person who is a tenant. They have no option in the matter.

Mr. JOHNSON

Can the Minister satisfy one anxiety as to whether one of the causes of the alleged delay was the absence of the British guarantee for the Bonds?

MINISTER for LANDS and AGRICULTURE

There are £100,000 already issued. As far as the Land Commission is concerned, that is not causing the slightest delay. The Bonds will not go on the market at the outset before next March or April. That matter is not causing any delay, and the mere fact that £100,000 in Bonds are already issued shows that conclusively.

Mr. HALL

Will the Minister see that in the division of land the rancher from Roscommon or Kerry shall not receive first preference in the division of lands in any particular area?

MINISTER for LANDS and AGRICULTURE

What does the Deputy mean by "rancher?"

Mr. HALL

I mean a man that comes in on the eleven months' system, from Roscommon or Kerry, or from some other county.

MINISTER for LANDS and AGRICULTURE

The Land Commission has no power to sell a man land which he gets as an agister under the eleven months' system.

Mr. HALL

Can the Minister state if the statement made in the speech of Deputy Colohan has been false, or will he confirm the statement of Deputy Colohan that the same thing has occurred?

Mr. LYONS

I think a lot of these points can be raised on Estimate No. 47, and I am sure the Minister has replied as fully as he could. I do not think it would be necessary to allow this Motion to remain on any longer than this evening. There are some points in the Minister's speech to which I would like to reply, but I daresay I will get the right to reply on the Land Commission Estimates. I, therefore, ask the leave of the Dail to withdraw my Motion.

Mr. HALL

I object to the withdrawal.

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE

The matter is disposed of. The time for Private Business is over.

Professor THRIFT

There was a little uncertainty as to whether a question raised by Deputy McKenna was to be dealt with at this stage or later.

Mr. O'HIGGINS

That will be dealt with immediately after the adjournment for tea. The Minister for Industry and Commerce will be available then, and it will be convenient for him then to make a statement.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

It is not so much my own convenience as the fact that the experts' investigation into the Siemens scheme is drawing to a close, and I will have to go into consultation with them. I will be able to be here again at 7 or 7.30. If I get the indulgence of the House I prefer to make my statement later.

Mr. JOHNSON

There is a possibility that the Government business will be finished before that.