COMMITTEE ON FINANCE. - VOTE 50—LAND COMMISSION. – Dáil Éireann (4th Dáil) – Wednesday, 17 Jun 1925

COMMITTEE ON FINANCE. - VOTE 50—LAND COMMISSION.

Mr. BLYTHE

I move:—

Go ndeontar suim ná raghaidh thar £444,993 chun slánuithe na suime is gá chun íoctha an Mhuirir a thiocfidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh lá de Mhárta, 1926, chun Tuarastáil agus Costaisí Oifig Choimisiún na Talmhan (44 agus 45 Vict., c. 49, a. 46, agus c. 71, a. 4; 48 agus 49 Vict., c. 73, a. 17, 18 agus 20; 53 agus 54 Vict., c. 49, a. 2; 54 agus 55 Vict., c. 48; 3 Edw. 7, c. 37; 7 Edw. 7, c. 38, agus c. 56; 9 Edw. 7, c. 42; an tAcht Dlí Thalmhan (Coimisiún), 1923, agus an tAcht Talmhan, 1923.)

That a sum not exceeding £444,993 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, 1926, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Land Commission (44 and 45 Vict., c. 49, s. 46, and c. 71, s. 4; 48 and 49 Vict., c. 73, ss. 17, 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.)

Mr. HOGAN

The Dáil will observe that there is an increase of £60,376 in this Estimate, and it is made up under different sub-heads:—Salaries, wages and allowances, £14,908; travelling expenses, £10,000; Solicitor's Department, £1,845; contribution towards charge for excess stock, £23,500; improvement of estates, £10,000. Practically all those items explain themselves. The increase is largely on the outdoor staff, and, if Deputies will turn to sub-head (a), they will find there have been considerable increases in the outdoor staff. There have been thirtytwo temporary inspectors appointed during the last year. The increases in the Solicitor's Department are simply normal increases, in view of the normal increase in work. The contribution towards charge for excess stock was incurred in connection with pending sales which fell due for financing up to the passing of the Land Act of 1923. In regard to the improvement of estates, the figure for 1924-25 was £190,000; it is now £200,000. That is for the purpose of making houses, roads, fences, etc., on estates as they are being purchased and divided. We expect we will require £100,000 for that next year. There is an increase also in respect to telegrams and telephones. The staff is increasing, especially the outdoor staff, and it is fairly certain there will be an increase under that sub-head next year. It is rather a simple Estimate as compared with the Department of Agriculture. I will await specific queries.

When I was opening the debate in connection with the Department of Agriculture estimate, I gave certain figures and other particulars as to the number of agricultural holdings in this country, and mentioned what could be done under the Act of 1923. The figures are very important, and it is essential that the House should realise what those figures mean and what is their implication. It is extremely hard to get accurate figures; it will take some time to do so. I mean by that figures that will please the statistician. We can, however, get figures accurate enough to give a picture of the problem that confronts us, and the possibilities from the point of view of dealing with it under the Land Act of 1923. I stated there were about 14,000,000 acres of arable land in the country. Those figures do not include what is commonly called barren mountain and high bog. I gave figures to show that there would be no more than 1,500,000 acres of untenanted land available for the relief of congestion.

I have been considering those figures and I am not quite satisfied that that is the right way to approach the matter, in view of the fact that the holdings of a great many tenants, especially in the congested districts, will include what is returned in the Departmental returns as barren mountain, high bog, waste, etc. It would be better to start with the figure of 16,000,000 acres as the total area of land in the country, excluding towns, roads, railways and absolute waste. It is the figure given usually in the returns — a little over 16,000,000 acres. That includes the figure of 2,000,000 acres, which is usually returned as barren mountain and high bog. If you take 2,000,000 from 16,000,000 that will leave the 14,000,000 acres that I began at. In view of the fact that the holdings of a great many tenants include some of the land described as barren mountain in the returns, it would be better begin with 16,000,000 acres and see where that brings us. That is the real area of the Free State, leaving out towns, roadways, railways and waterways. Under previous Acts, the Land Commission dealt with 11,000,000 acres. The real figure is a little over that, but the difference is not worth talking about. Therefore, that would leave 5,000,000 acres to be dealt with.

There are 95,000 unpurchased holdings, and we are in a position to make a very fair guess at the total area of these holdings. We have already got returns in respect to 1,700,000 acres, and those returns are only for 44,000 out of the 95,000 holdings I have referred to. Of course, we have returns for all holdings as far as rents are concerned. The area of tenanted land, not purchased, is not far short of 3,300,000 acres. It is probably somewhat more, but on that showing, if you deduct 3,300,000 from the 5,000,000 acres that I have mentioned, you will get 1,700,000 acres of untenanted land, undealt with under previous Land Acts. There is not a figure there that can be doubted except one, and that is the area of tenanted land. The rest of the figures are simple. I think you can take it that the area of tenanted land, namely, 3,300,000 acres, is not far wrong. If anything, it errs on the small side. That leaves you with 1,700,000 acres of untenanted land. I would make a deduction for barren mountain and waste and high bog. I would deduct at least 500,000 acres. Let it be remembered that in most of the Department's returns there are 2,000,000 acres set aside as barren mountain and bog. If you deduct 500,000 acres you will have a very fair idea of the area of land that we will call suitable for the purposes of division. A considerable part of it will be very poor and scarcely fit for anything else but sheep, unless it is reclaimed, and even a considerable area is unreclaimable. That leaves 1,200,000 acres that could possibly be dealt with.

Mr. WOLFE

Does that include all demesnes?

Mr. HOGAN

It does, of course. By any stretch of the imagination, you cannot contemplate having more than 1,700,000 acres of untenanted land to divide under the 1923 Act. Remember that I deducted only 500,000 acres for barren mountain and high bog, notwithstanding that the usual figure returned for that purpose in all Departmental returns, is about 2,000,000 acres.

And that the landless man gets thirty-five acres statute, or twenty-two Irish acres. You give the congest a little less, because he is presumed to have some land already, but if you lump them together you agree that the average requirement for both classes will be thirty acres statute, and you divide 1,200,000 by thirty. You can deal with 40,000, at the very outside, of congests and landless men.

Mr. WILSON

You must take all the demesnes with the 1,200,000.

Mr. HOGAN

I have taken them. I am not standing over that figure. My opinion is that it is a very small figure, but it is the only debatable figure there, and in any case Deputies themselves know what it is and can make their own additions or subtractions in regard to it. But even if we did not take off one acre we could only deal with 56,000 congests and landless men on that basis, and if you do take off that amount I have estimated, you can deal with 40,000. In my opinion that is a maximum; there is only one possible figure that would upset their calculation, and that is that figure of 3,300,000 acres as the acreage under the holdings of tenants not purchased. That is the figure which I deducted from the 5,000,000, which is the difference between the 11,000,000 already dealt with, and 16,000,000 which is the total area of the country. That gives you 5,000,000 acres of land not dealt with by the Land Commission, and I estimate that about 3,300,000 acres of that is under the holdings of tenants. That figure cannot be far wrong. We have already returns for 1,700,000 acres in respect of about 45,000 tenants. The real big question of policy which the Land Commission has to consider is what is to be done with these 45,000 people and how to do it.

Professor THRIFT

Do the thirty acres not provide for two men?

Mr. HOGAN

No, only one. In order to get at this thirty acres, I assume that it would be necessary to give a congest about twenty-five acres statute in addition to his existing holding, that would be sixteen Irish acres. So far as the landless man is concerned, we would have to give him thirty-five acres statute or twenty-two acres Irish, and the average of those figures, twenty-five and thirty-five, would be thirty acres of land. That is what you want. Thirty acres of land will deal with the average case, whether he is a congest or a landless man, and if you divide thirty acres into 1,700,000 acres you can get 56,000 holdings.

Mr. GOREY

That is assuming that there are as many of one as of the other.

Mr. HOGAN

I am not talking about whether there are as many of one as the other. I am simply assuming that the congest is to get twenty-five acres and the landless man thirty-five, and that on that estimate, which is a rather rough one, you can say that you require thirty acres at the moment for a congest or a landless man.

Mr. HEWAT

I suppose this has been considered? My opinion is that thirty-five acres is a large farm, even for a man who has no land at all.

Mr. HOGAN

Thirty-five statute acres is twenty-two Irish acres, and that would, on the average, be cutting it tight. Remember that twenty-two Irish acres of average good land in the Midlands would not be as good as thirty acres in the East, and thirty acres of average land in Galway, Mayo, or Sligo would not be as good as twenty-two acres in the Midlands. Thirty is cutting it tight. However, let us assume that these figures are right for the moment. If you estimate that you want thirty statute acres per holding, then if you have 1,700,000 acres of land — which you have not because you have to make deductions for demesnes —you can only deal with 56,000 congests and landless men.

Mr. CONNOR HOGAN

Would not the Minister explain it better this way by saying that you could have 56,000 holdings——

Mr. HOGAN

Let me finish. If you deduct 5,000 acres you can only deal with 40,000. I think you will have to deduct more. I leave that figure in doubt, because it will be very hard to get an accurate figure. Anyhow, it is clear that not more than 40,000 of either congests or landless men can be dealt with under the Act of 1923. That raises a very big question of policy. I do not know how many congests there are. I think we are safe in assuming that there are at least 80,000, and they are mainly in the congested districts. Some are purchased already, some are to be purchased, but that does not alter the problem one bit; they are there; we pass relief grants for them every year, and until the problem of congestion is tackled in a drastic way we will continue to do so. That is easily the biggest problem that is before this State agriculturally, because it is partly insoluble, and the question now is whether the Land Commission is to take the heroic decision that it will give practically no land to landless men and that it will deal with 40,000 congests, or whether it will go ahead, divide land in a hurry, as everybody wants it to do, and deal with, let us say, 10,000 or 15,000 congests and 10,000 or 15,000 landless men. This problem of congestion will have to be tackled in six, seven, or eight years, in any event, and tackled very seriously. By that time land purchase will be completed, and the State ought not to be in the position in seven or eight years of regretting that land purchase is completed. If we took heroic measures we could deal with about 40,000 congests. If there was plenty of money for migration, if we had the support of every element in the country, if it was a question of national policy which everyone stood over, and was above politics, if there was no pressure from any quarter to deal with landless men, if this was regarded as a big national problem that had to be dealt with and all parties would agree that they were on common ground, and if it was agreed on all sides that only a limited number of landless men would be dealt with, we could eat into probably half of this problem of congestion.

It would require that goodwill, it would require that co-operation, and it would require considerable sums of money for migration purposes. Before we could come to a deliberate decision that that should be our policy we would also have to inquire a little more closely into the exact character of the congest; we would have to make up our minds as to how many of them would exist in other conditions, and we would have to measure the cost of transporting them. It would be very big; I have not gone into it very closely. It would be an element in the situation which should be fully known before we made up our minds as to what the policy should be. All these questions should be considered, and I suggest that the correct attitude on the work of the Land Commission, in view of that problem, which seems to me to be almost insoluble, so far as 20,000 or 30,000 congests are concerned, no matter what we do, would be for the Land Commission to go even more slowly than they are alleged to be going, to consider the whole case, to consider the question of whether land should be divided in Longford, Leix, or Offaly, and so on, on the lines, perfectly proper lines, of dealing with congests that are just about there, and dealing with deserving landless men that are about there in a far lesser number. That is a perfectly understandable policy; it is a policy that may in the long run be the right one. But there is the point of view that there are at least 80,000 congests, and with the best will in the world we can only deal with 40,000. But we can deal with 40,000, and we can eat into half the problem. There will be a big enough problem there in eight or nine years, even with 40,000, that we might bring it within a measurable distance of solution if we did deal with half the problem. But the problem is there. It is one of the biggest problems, in my opinion, confronting the Land Commission or the State. It is a problem that will mature as years go on, and it will have to be solved some day.

There are other possibilities in connection with its solution. They are limited, but there are possibilities on the lines of reclamation. The point which I should like Deputies to bear in mind is this, that I do not profess to have grasped all the elements of the problem. It is very hard to get a picture in your mind of a big problem like this, and get all the figures and facts necessary in order to envisage it. But there are sufficient elements in the situation to enable us to come to the conclusion that it is essentially a case which requires full investigation with a view to a national policy on the matter, so as to save us from simply putting through land purchase in a haphazard way and, finding at the end of five years, that we have a problem which is much harder to deal with in view of the fact that land purchase has been completed. That is all I wish to say on the question.

Sitting suspended at 6.25 and resumed at 7.15 p.m.,AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE in the Chair.

Mr. HOGAN (resuming)

I wish to give a résumé of the work of the Land Commission in connection with the 1923 Land Act. I have three schedules in connection with tenanted and untenanted land, and I want to go back on the work of the Land Commission in connection with the 25 per cent. reduction. With regard to tenanted land, there is vested in the Land Commission 11,906 acres of tenanted land — that is, where the thirty or thirty-five per cent. reduction, as the case may be, is given. There is gazetted, and must be vested, in addition to this, a further 183,665 acres, and the purchase schedules have been lodged in respect of 1,351,448 acres. Deputies will note that gazetting is the stage just before vesting. The idea of gazetting is to give notice to all and sundry who may have claims against the land. That is a total acreage of 1,547,019. That is in respect of about 44,000 tenants. That is a figure that can be used to check our figures for untenanted land. You have got that figure for tenanted land. The fact that there are 44,000 out of 95,000 tenants being dealt with within these figures is something that will enable us to check the figure for untenanted land. I should say that this return was made out a month ago and that the total area dealt with would now be about 1,700,000 acres. I have the figures by counties, but I will not delay the Dáil by giving them.

With regard to untenanted land, there has been actually divided about 10,000 acres. There is vested in the Land Commission 17,620 acres. The price has been fixed in respect of 41,520 acres. A price has been offered, or the lands have been gazetted, in respect of 88,942 acres. In addition, 172,100 acres have been inspected, and inquiries are being made, with a view to inspection, approximately in regard to 377,900 acres. So that the Land Commission are dealing, either by way of having vested, or making inquiries, with 708,082 acres — something about half the figure which I gave for the total area of untenanted land available.

Mr. T.J. O'CONNELL

Could the Minister say how much of the 10,000 acres actually divided would be in the congested districts?

Mr. HOGAN

I am afraid I could not. I will let the Deputy have that information, but it will take a little time. That is the position in regard to the work of the Land Commission under the Land Act of 1923. I would ask the Dáil to remember that there is a large number of pending sales in the Land Commission — land purchased up to the passing of the Land Act of 1923 under previous Acts, and over £1,000,000 worth of that has been dealt with. In addition to that, I would ask the Dáil to remember that the Land Commission was switched off from its proper functions last winter — and rightly so — for the purpose of administering relief grants. Deputies will remember that we announced these relief grants in the Dáil some time in the early winter, and that Deputies, especially from the Labour Benches, suggested that they hoped that not only would the grants before the Dáil be passed, but that the money would be really spent in time. On that occasion I pointed out that we had for a long time schedules prepared in the Land Commission, as we had contemplated that particular contingency arising, for works that could usefully be done in connection with estates. I gave an undertaking to the Dáil that all the moneys voted would be spent. All the money voted has been spent with the exception that a negligible sum, which will complete existing works within a very short time, has to be spent. The money was spent within the time. That is to say, within the winter, between 1st December and 1st May — the time when relief grants are really needed.

A large portion of the Land Commission staff had to be taken off their proper work of the acquisition and division of land for that purpose. That applied both to the outdoor and indoor staff, but especially the outdoor. It was necessary to do the work quickly and, at the same time, to see that it was carried out efficiently. All during the winter, therefore, a large portion of the staff, which should be doing the work in connection with the acquisition and division of land, was concentrated on that particular work. That was necessary, but it is work which in the ordinary way is not within the scope of the activities of the Land Commission. The Land Commission, therefore, was trying to deal with pending sales under previous Acts, had to operate the Land Act of 1923, had to do a considerable amount of work in connection with land coming into the Land Commission, and the clerical staff especially were faced with a very considerable problem in regard to arrears.

The position in regard to arrears is this: At the present date the arrears amount to £300,000 out of a total collection of practically £3,000,000. That is a small arrear. At the same time, it is a very much bigger arrear than used to be there in normal times. About the year 1922, we found that the arrears, which used to be £50,000, £60,000 or £70,000, went up suddenly to £600,000. I will say that a very large proportion of the people who did come into arrears of that time, who had arrears amounting to £600,000, had to be processed. The extraordinary thing is, that those particular people had to be processed not only for the gale in the first half, let us say, of 1923, but for the second half of 1923, for the first half of 1924, and again for the second half in 1924. Now the arrears are reduced to about £300,000. It is interesting to note that those arrears were owed, in the main, by the particular people who were always in arrears. It is also interesting to note that when the Land Commission got complaints about people not getting their receivable orders, about confusion as to receivable orders, those complaints, in the main, come from people who never had their receivable orders, according to themselves, but had been always losing them. But this arrears problem, in the circumstances that existed in 1922, 1923, 1924, when the Post Office was to a certain extent disorganised, has given the land Commission ten times more trouble than the normal collection of all the rest of the annuities from the tenants who always paid.

Anyway that is what the Land Commission has done in connection with the 1923 Act. In respect of arrears I would like to say that there must be some misconception as to what the effects of those arrears are, first on the guarantee fund, and secondly, on the rates of each county. I can read letters in the papers and hear statements made from various sources that the rates are high and are increasing year by year because big amounts have to be stopped from the guarantee fund which should go to the rates in the ordinary way.

Oh, no.

Oh, no. That document only gives the holdings.

Mr. O'CONNELL

As I said, the main complaint is as to delay. The Minister told us this time last year, when discussing this Vote before, that the Land Commission would have to survey the whole position to see what it could do, and the impression he left on me, at any rate, on that occasion, was that they had practically the whole surveying done, that they had practically looked over the whole position and realised what the work before them was, and that they were almost ready to begin what was the real work, so far as the congested areas was concerned.

That was the impression left on me, and, certainly, it was the impression left on the people anxiously looking towards the Ministry ever since the Free State was established, to plant them on the land, and to take them out of the terrible position in which they found themselves.

Now, I feel that the position in the congested areas is not at all fully realised by the majority of members of this Dáil, or by the majority of the people of the country, that is by those who have not travelled over these areas. I think it would be one of the best things the Minister could do if he organised an excursion first through Meath to Navan and on to Slane, and through Roscommon and Strokestown, through Tulsk, and then through Swinford, on through Westport, and down through Connemara, and back again through Galway to Athlone. I think it would be a very good education for Deputies in this House, and they would see some of the things that the Ministry and the country are up against.

Now, I am speaking with some intimate knowledge of at least two counties. one the County Galway, which I represent, and the other Mayo, my native county. In these two counties things have reached a stage that the people are actually despairing almost that the Government is going to do anything to relieve the position in which they find themselves. They have listened to promises of distribution of land.

Mr. CONNOR HOGAN

From whom?

Mr. O'CONNELL

From the Ministry, and from those who support the Ministry, and who speak for the Government and on behalf of the Government. These promises have not materialised, and they are beginning to wonder whether they ever will materialise. I would like to give a few instances from the hundreds of letters that I have got pointing out what the position is. I know the Minister does not set much value upon general statements; he always likes to have particulars.

There is just one other matter before I finish that I would like to draw attention to. That is the present condition of many of these tenants. They have fallen behind with their annuities, even small as they are. It is a peculiar thing that the tenants in these small, little holdings, ranging from four or five to nine or ten acres, have all large families, and they have found it impossible to get anything like a living out of their little holdings. The openings which they previously had by emigration to the English harvest fields are now closed to them. The result was that during the bad years many of them fell into arrears. Quite possibly many of them refused to pay up when they could pay up. The fact remains that they have fallen into arrears. They have been processed in the courts and decrees have been taken out against them. I suggest to the Minister that he should recognise the fact that they are uneconomic holders and that something should be done pending the giving of land to them, something by way of moratorium or something else to relieve the position. They are not in a position to pay at the present time. You can evict them, of course, and you can take up their holdings, but I suggest that is not the way to deal with the position.

I would press on the Minister that this question of the relief of congestion is the biggest that has to be tackled, and I have no hesitation in saying that before landless men or any other men get land the position of these uneconomic holders should be dealt with. I hold that their claims come first, before landless men or anybody else. It is one of their grievances, when they hear of cases of men who are comparatively comfortable, even though they have not large holdings, getting divisions of land in other parts of the country. It should be the duty of the Minister, the duty of every Deputy, I hold, with the Minister, to recognise that the claims of these men come first, and that there should not be on the part of any Deputy or any representative man claims for placing landless men on land so long as this question of the congests remains to be dealt with.

I press again on the Minister the advisability of dealing, and dealing immediately, with these districts, and especially that the Land Commission should give no excuse for discontent by holding over farms which they have in their possession and which can be divided. That is, as I say, one of the greatest grievances, and when it is said that the Land Commission is waiting to take over this land, or some other land, to relieve congestion, the reply is: "Have they not this farm for the last ten years and they have not divided it." That is a thing that should be dealt with immediately. The whole economic position of the west of Ireland, and consequently of the country generally is involved in this matter of the relief of congestion. I urge that it is one to which the Minister should first turn his attention, because even though Dairy Produce Bills and Live Stock Breeding Bills are very important, the question of planting the people on the land is the most urgent of all, and it is the first that should be tackled.

Mr. SHAW

When this Vote was on last year I had occasion to congratulate the Minister for Lands and Agriculture and the officials of the Land Commission, in connection with the good work they had carried out in the two counties which I have the honour to represent. I am in the position to renew these congratulations. I know the great difficulties that they have to contend with. I know the great difficulties they have had in connection with the final obtaining of lands for which they are in negotiation. In the Counties of Westmeath and Longford over 2,500 acres of land have already been actually divided and the tenants put into possession. At the present time these tenants have started to cultivate and till the holdings they have been put into possession of. I look forward to the future with regard to the division of these ranches, which in the past were useless to anybody, to see that they will be able to provide homes where these men can rear their families in comfort, because from what I have already seen of the men, and the women, too, who have been put into possession of the lands that have been divided, I have no doubt at all from the earnestness that they have shown already in the working of these lands, that they will make a gigantic success of them. There are 3,200 acres actually acquired. I understand that schemes are being prepared for the division of this land. I am also aware that 13,000 acres have been inspected, and that at the present time negotiations are taking place for their acquisition, either that or they are the subject of consideration by the Land Commission. I know that the landless men problem is a very difficult one, particularly because there is not enough of land to go round for half or quarter the people who require it. I do believe that the solution of the landless men problem can be found largely in the provision of cow parks in the various ranches or lands that are being divided. In Westmeath, in the lands that have already been divided, cow parks have been retained — only 30 or 40 acres.

Mr. T.J. O'CONNELL

Might I ask the Deputy what class of tenants got these 2,500 acres that were divided— were they congests?

Mr. SHAW

They were the most deserving people in the locality, they were people who were living and endeavouring to rear families on five or six acres of land, and perhaps an acre of bog.

Mr. DAVIN

Were the cow parks that the Deputy is referring to, retained adjacent to the towns and villages?

Mr. SHAW

Well, the cow parks I alluded to are possibly three miles from the town. However, I am only making a suggestion with regard to the possibility of satisfying men who cannot be satisfied otherwise. I take a considerable interest in these men, and I know they are satisfied if they can get some place where they can put a cow. The Westmeath County Council have appointed two or three trustees from the council to endeavour to work these cow parks in the different areas where the land is divided. I have thrown out that suggestion to the Minister as being the only possibility I see with regard to the solving of the landless men problem. I also suggest to the Minister with regard to the lands that have been divided, that he should start the work of making roads into those lands as quickly as possible, because, owing to the great unemployment that exists all over the counties, this is a slack time and a suitable time. In a month or six weeks or two months the road work will begin. At the present time these men are finding it hard to get employment. In these lands that have been divided, this money is set aside for this purpose, and I would ask the Minister to speed up the starting of this work during the slack time when the men are mostly idle and cannot get work elsewhere.

Mr. SEARS

I was very glad to hear the figures given by the Minister with regard to the inspection of untenanted land in the congested areas. I would impress upon him that he should do everything in his power to hasten the work of distribution. Very few people living on this side of the Shannon have any real idea what sort of lives those poor people live. We hear the farmers here from well-to-do counties complaining of depression, and rightly complaining of depression. Last year the farmers had very good ground for complaining. But if those men with 40, 30, or 20 acres complain, one can imagine the position of men living in holdings of from £3 to £6 valuation and trying to rear families on them. And these farms generally in the West of Ireland, as Deputy O'Connell has said, consist of cut-away bog, the poorest kind of land, and where it is not bog it is rock. They generally try to eke out an existence, pay the rent and pay the shops by sending their sons to America. That is the only way they can live. Is it not a wonder that these people are impatient?

Anyone who has represented a Western constituency in the congested districts for the last two years must know of the growing volume of impatience that he encounters everywhere he goes, and one cannot help having sympathy with them. These people feel they have got their own Parliament, they have got their own Government in power, and they are eager for the distribution of the lands. Of course their impatience is very often founded on a wrong conception of the time it takes to do that work. There were several things that occurred that delayed it. I would urge upon the Minister and upon the Land Commission the necessity of speeding up this work to the fullest extent by every means in their power. The figures given by the Minister with regard to the land available for distribution are very discouraging, no doubt. But the Land Commission will not be blamed for not dividing land they have not got. Those people see around them large ranches and big farms here and there, lands held by the grazier for the last fifty years, held by the grazier last year and held by the grazier this year, and that is what is driving them almost to despair. They want to know why has not that land been distributed. Of course if they were able to come here and hear the figures and able to hear the Minister's statement they would sit down with some confidence and more hope. But it is hard to bring all these facts home to them.

I do not agree with Deputy O'Connell generally, though I agree with him in every word he said about the state of the people, and the account he gave of their farms and the low standard of living they are driven to. I agree with him in every word he said. But the bulk of the people have full confidence that this Government is going to divide the land. If you go down to any part of Mayo or Galway or Donegal and tell them that this Government is going to divide the lands——

Mr. T.J. O'CONNELL

They are getting tired of being told that.

Mr. SEARS

I told them that last Sunday, and I told them that I, for one, would come to this Dáil no more if I did not believe the land was to be divided. I would not have anything to do with the Dáil or with the Government or Party if I did not believe they were going to divide these lands. I would urge upon them the necessity of speeding up the division by every means in their power, and to do it by increasing the number of inspectors, by increasing the staff, and not by cutting down the staff or taking away clerical assistance from the Land Commission.

Another point: there are numerous demesnes with big houses on them. I hope the Minister is not going to be too tender about dealing with these demesnes. They have been for 500 years in the possession of these landlord families. I think that is long enough for them to have them, and it is time for the people to get them now. I am not in favour of giving land to landless men, but if landless men are not going to get it, it should not be left to these men either. The graziers should not be allowed to come in year after year and make a profit out of these holdings. These lands should be handed over to the people in the congested villages bordering on these ranches. Again, I say, that the argument that migrants are unwilling to leave the district should not be used any more, because there is not enough land to give those who are willing to leave. If every man who is willing to migrate gets a farm I would be satisfied. The people have confidence that the Government will divide these lands, but I would urge them to spare no effort in speeding up the work of distribution.

Mr. JOHNSON

I am speaking now because I hope that the Deputies on the Farmers' Benches will be able to give fuller attention to and speak with more detailed knowledge on the subject after the few words I have to say. I would like to deal with one or two of the larger issues raised by the Minister's statement. I think I see in the speech of the Minister to-day, coupled with that of last week, some doubts in his mind as to the wisdom of the policy that is set forth in the Land Act of 1923. In his speeches during the Land Bill debates there were frequent references to and warnings of the difficulties that might arise regarding the distribution of land, and the shortage of the area to be distributed. Notwithstanding this consciousness even at that time of the difficulties, the Act contains references to congests, landless men, evicted tenants, and workmen displaced from estates which were being distributed. All over the country these various classes of men have been buoyed up with the hope and expectation that in due course it would come to their turn to receive the land that was being distributed. Now the Minister is being faced more closely with the problem. He sees that according to the figures he has given, probably not more than 40,000 congests and landless men can be provided with holdings. That will leave another 40,000 or 50,000 congests unprovided for, and many other thousands of landless men, not to speak of evicted tenants and others.

The Minister then asks, almost in so many words, for a direction as to the policy which the Land Commission ought to pursue in regard to the distribution of land. He said: "Shall the Land Commission take the heroic decision to give no land to landless men?" and then shortly afterwards he repeated the sentence in slightly different language and spoke of the minimum number of landless men. I am not sure what the Minister's position is in regard to this, or what position he desires the Dáil to take in regard to it. When discussing the Land Bill he pointed out that the position of the Land Commission was rather difficult and peculiar, inasmuch as it was semi-judicial. So far as the powers are judicial the Land Commission has discretion, he said, and so far as they are administrative they are controlled by the Minister for Agriculture. Then he said: "That is provided for in the Land Commission Bill." I am curious to know whether the Land Commission is seeking a direction from the Dáil, or the Minister, or the Oireachtas, as to the policy it should pursue in regard to congests or landless men, or whether it has to exercise a discretion and take its own risk, or whether the Minister responsible is to give a direction as to the policy. It is quite clear that there is going to be a great deal of disappointment. Deputy O'Connell made references to despair and desperation, which the Minister said were very nearly the same thing. I suggest that the words denote a different state of mind, despair being rather a passive state and desperation an active state. If the passive is changed into the active we will know the difference between despair and desperation. But is it to the House the Land Commission is going to look for a direction as to whether, in the distribution of land, it has to adopt the policy of excluding landless men, and only concern itself with congests, and whether congests are to be considered mainly as those who are to be migrated? The Minister, I think, has rather overlooked that the provisions of the Act assume congests in the area concerned. We have had no figures, at least I cannot remember having seen any, as to the number of congests in different parts of the country outside the scheduled congested areas. Possibly the figure was given by the Minister when he spoke of 80,000, or perhaps 100,000, and perhaps the difference of 20,000 indicates the number in the different parts of the country outside the strictly congested areas.

I am not sure that the Minister's figures regarding the number of acres available stand the test of analysis, unless he is contemplating the maintenance of a large number of large holdings of lands, which are at present called tenanted lands. He said last week: "You can raise the holding from 20 statute acres on the average to 30 statute acres on the average if you can acquire compulsorily 500,000 or 600,000 acres from existing tenants who are amongst the 10,000 with over £100 valuation." The figures he has given to-day show us that, if we make the assumption that all the holdings over 100 acres, numbering 30,000, average 150 acres — and, from the figures, I do not think that that is an extravagant assumption — we have 4½ million acres.

Mr. HOGAN

The Deputy is forgetting to deduct about 15,000 holdings which would be fee-simple holdings.

If it is to be the heroic policy of deciding that the landless men shall not be given land, though their hopes have been stimulated by the Minister's and other Deputies' speeches, it will have to be decided upon the Minister's responsibility. Perhaps, before the debate closes, the Minister will tell us whether there has been any delay on the part of the Land Commission, due to hesitation as to the policy on this matter, which they are to put into practical operation? The tendency of the speeches that he has delivered so far suggests, at least to me, that the question of policy is a matter of hesitation and doubt, and that they are waiting for a lead from others than themselves.

Mr. WHITE

We know absolutely nothing about the administration of the Land Act in Donegal except the collection of compounded arrears, payment in lieu of rent, and the issue of processes for both of these items in many instances where they have been already paid.

Mr. HOGAN

Name.

Mr. WHITE

I am sorry to have to change the tune of the debate. I wish to deal with delay, irritation, and the arbitrary treatment of the people in Donegal by the Land Commission and the State Solicitor. We have heard about men getting 22 and 24 acres, and how they will manage to live on that area. I can tell you about fellows in Donegal who live on 3½ acres of cutout bog. I can tell you that they got three processes inside of three half-years; that was to remind them of the benevolent Government that they are living under. There is a matter in connection with turbary that I wish to bring under the notice of the Minister. The estate in question formerly belonged to Lord Shaftesbury, and was sold to the tenants under the Wyndham Act of 1903. I refer to the townland of Ballycharry, in my area. Sixteen tenants bought their holdings in 1904, and were secured in the turbary rights in Ballycharry. Expensive and ruinous litigation started between the people and a family named Harkin, who purchased a farm on the estate in the year 1919. Twenty-two processes were issued against these tenants by the Harkins for trespass and cutting turf. This is a most interesting case. The tenants, through their solicitor, instituted equity proceedings to restrain the Harkins from interfering with their rights. The cases were tried before Judge Power, at Carndonagh, in March, 1922, and they were decided in the tenants' favour. However, from this decision an appeal was made to the Dáil Eireann (Winding-up Courts) Commission, consisting of three judges, who reversed Judge Power's decision and deprived those unfortunate sixteen tenants of their turbary rights, which they purchased from Lord Shaftesbury in 1904. They were let in for costs, amounting to almost £250. This may have been cold, academic law, this decision of the Dáil Eireann (Winding-up Courts) Commission, but there was damn little justice in it.

Mr. HOGAN

Where do the Land Commission come in?

Mr. WHITE

I am coming to that. The Land Commission was appealed to on several occasions to interfere on behalf of those unfortunate tenants and to restore to them their turbary rights, which I allege have been simply stolen from them through the eccentricities of the gentlemen who composed the Dáil Eireann (Winding-up Courts) Commission.

The Land Commission has unlimited power under Section 37 of the 1923 Act to do justice to these men, and why does it not do it?

Mr. HOGAN

Did the Deputy say Section 37?

Mr. WHITE

Certainly. Let me read the following letter which I have received on this matter:

Donegal,

15th May, 1925.

Dear Mr. White,

In reply to your letters of the 11th and 13th May — Ballycharry. I went fully into the turbary question in February last with the tenants and Doctor Harkin. On the 28th February I sent to the Land Commission a report giving them all the facts. Up to the present the Land Commission have not instructed me to take any action. I am sending your letter to head office to-day and am asking them to deal with it.

Yours faithfully,

Alexander Agnew.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

So will I.

Mr. WHITE:

Ballybofey,

14/5/'25.

Irish Land Commission v. You.

Dear Sir (or Madam),

Unless the amount due on foot of your decree is paid within seven days from this date, I shall be obliged to lodge same with the Sheriff for immediate execution.

Yours faithfully,

W.T. MacMenamin.

Amount of decree, £6 10s. 8d.

That deals with the Ballycharry case. What I am now referring to are processes that have been issued by the State Solicitor for instalments that have already been paid, or partly paid. I have dozens of them here. What is fun to the Land Commission and to the Minister is none to these people.

The Irish Land Commission,

Solicitors' Department,

24 Upper Merrion Street,

Dublin.

23rd May, 1925.

Sir,—As the above case is in the hands of Mr. W.T. MacMenamin, solicitor, of Ballybofey, for the recovery of the arrears of the land purchase annuity payable to the Land Commission, I am directed by the Commissioners to return your remittance of £2 3s. 6d.

You must settle the amount due with the solicitor above-named.

Here is a Post Office Order for £2 3s. 6d. that was sent for two instalments, one due on the 1st December, 1924, and another due on the 1st June, 1925, returned from the solicitors' department of the Land Commission.

Mr. HOGAN

He would have to pay costs.

Mr. WHITE

Has an unfortunate man whose half-year's annuity is £1 1s. 9d. to pay costs that he has no right to pay in order to inflate the income of the State Solicitor, when some of these cases have already been defended at the Circuit Court and dismisses have been obtained? The Land Commission will not pay their costs nor will they pay the costs of the dismiss. Several cases can be quoted. The other matters that I have to deal with also refer to turbary, but as evidently you have heard enough from me I will sit down until to-morrow.

Mr. GOREY

Finish it and be done with it.

Mr. WHITE

I have finished it now; I have given you the facts, facts that you will not be able to get over very readily.

Mr. CONNOR HOGAN

I must pay a tribute to Deputy O'Connell for the speech which he has delivered. While I do not agree with the conclusions that he arrived at, still, as a Farmer Deputy, I feel bound to mark publicly my appreciation of some of the language used in portraying the conditions under which small farmers live in Connaught. He referred to the rundale system. I am not going to enter into the question as to whether the economic holder or congest, as against the landless man, should receive priority in treatment. There was at least one thing in Deputy Sears' speech that I could not identify myself with, and that was bringing this question of land division to the hustings. I quite appreciate the fact that when the Minister for Agriculture was speaking he said this matter should be above party. I quite agree. I look upon this as a question of social reform. Yet, when you go down the country you find that this matter is not regarded in that light. I have here a report published in the "Saturday Record" of the 23rd May, which is an effort to boost the coming to Ennis of certain Members of the Government. The article, which was communicated, I understand, by the Cumann na nGaedheal organisation, says:—

Cumann na nGaedheal, mindful of these things, has especially invited down the one man who can appreciate any losses sustained; who can promise the necessary aid and help, and, what is more important, who can redeem each and every promise he will make, not with empty, idle-sounding words but with something substantial and tangible, that will speak in louder and more eloquent fashion, to the poor distressed farmer than all the fanning tongues that ever voiced themselves in Babel. That man is the Minister for Agriculture. His Land Act is his credentials. There is a prairie of untenanted land in Clare; there are poor men in uneconomic holdings; there are bogs unevenly distributed; ranches in the hands of the very few. These must be partitioned and divided into lots, to make what was uneconomic economic. Force and violence will not register them so. There is only one "constitutional" means, and the people of Clare will do well to bear in mind that in this manner, and this alone, will national prosperity be theirs, for now and all time to come.

Since I have come into public life, not very long ago, indeed, in the Dáil and in the country, I have consistently refrained from putting forward what I might call a demand for the division of lands, that is making it the basis of a popular "stunt." I repudiate the idea. I would walk the plank of political life to-morrow before I would descend to such tactics. Other parties, unfortunately, have not taken that view. I repeat that I look upon this matter as a measure of social reform— of amelioration of the position of the poorest classes in the community, and I would think it wrong, and criminal, perhaps, to endeavour to exploit their sufferings and their woes. Deputy Sears says that he would go down the country still and engage in this. We must remember that we have to deal with people who, unfortunately, are rather backward. Their ignorance, perhaps, is regrettable, but it is nothing to fling stones at them for. Unfortunately, no matter how judiciously you speak to some audiences, they will misinterpret you. They will take exaggerated and perverse views of the statements you make.

Mr. SEARS

County Clare.

Mr. C. HOGAN

Not County Clare. It is all over Ireland. Deputy Sears is as well aware of the fact as I am. The Deputy understands very well, when the idea is generated amongst the rank and file, the reaction that it naturally lends itself to. I can quite appreciate the idea of making this question of the division of land one apart altogether from politics. I have never endeavoured to incite people to anything like that. When a case is put up to me I transfer it automatically to the Land Commission and let them deal with it on its merits. I would not ask any question in the Dáil about the division of land. But the thing has come to this pass, that in the country hopes have been so much excited, and the cupidity of the people has been aroused to such an extent, that people already in possession of land must, I fear, in self-defence, organise to resist some of this insidious propaganda about the division of land that is going on.

I regret to have to take such a line on this. I know it would be quite a popular stunt, if we wanted popularity, to raise a counter-cry, a reactionary cry, against the dividing of land. I hope we will not be driven to it, but, if we are, the fault will lie with those people who preach division of land without consideration, without reflection and without regard, I submit, to the economy of the process. We had the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs in Cavan on Sunday. He spoke on the question of the rancher. The bullock, he said, must go. Well, I go part of the way with him. I say the bullock must go to England. In the record of last year's exports I find that the value of fresh beef and veal exported was £26,533. Fat cattle exported amounted in numbers to 707,871, with a value of £7,501,717.

Mr. HOGAN

When?

Mr. CONNOR HOGAN

In 1924. Those are the official figures of the Department of Industry and Commerce. The number of stores exported was 1,413,798, and the value, £8,316,473; milch cows, 52,653, and the value, £861,068; springers, 12,793, of the value of £287,721; calves, 14,893, of the value of £307,734; fat sheep, store sheep and lambs were, approximately, 88,000 and the value roughly would be £1,600,000. Yet, this is the big trade that the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs tells us to quit, and he tells us that without having adapted ourselves to another system. "The bullock must go!" But while we are driving out the bullock we are to a large extent to refrain from adapting the land to another system of economy. I submit that that position is one which should not be adopted by any responsible politician, not alone one at the head of a Department of State but of any standing or stake in the country, if he values its peace or prosperity.

I have before me the report of the Commission on Agriculture that referred to the place of ranching and the eleven months system in Irish agriculture. It was part of their terms of reference. This is what they said:—

In certain districts of France and Ireland it is well known that the undue subdivision of land, while securing both a large population and intensive production, has failed to produce the best social conditions. A large population crowded on the land may, either owing to excessive congestion, or to depression in prices, or to both combined, be living on the verge of destitution. Under such conditions a bad season may precipitate a famine. Ireland has had a bitter experience of this. Any closer settlement policy must, therefore, be handled with great care or it may produce calamitous results.

Mr. JOHNSON

That is the majority report.

Mr. HOGAN

Yes, but I swear by the majority report, for to me the wisdom of the majority is something which we are bound to respect.

A DEPUTY

Not always.

Mr. C. HOGAN

That is true, not always.

Mr. T.J. O'CONNELL

You are giving the show away.

Mr. JOHNSON

When wisdom is shown.

Mr. CONNOR HOGAN

Wisdom, I feel, is shown in this. I am not suggesting there is not a land problem in Ireland. There is a problem of relieving persons in the congested districts, of relieving the uneconomic holdings outside these districts and the problem of the landless men. I submit it must be handled with great tact, that first and foremost it is a question of social reform and of keeping, at the same time, a steady eye on the economy of the system, moving slowly in the sense of gentle expansion. Deputy Johnson said the Minister was perhaps thinking too much of the present economy. I submit the Minister is bound to think of the present economy. It is well worth while to examine the economy of the small farm. I should say, outside the tillage districts, the bulk of the people are engaged in mixed farming. Young cattle are kept to one or two years old. They are then sold off. They fetch comparatively remunerative prices. Those cattle are fed as stores for over six or twelve months. A lot depends on the age at which they are purchased. The fact remains that it is on those ranches that those cattle are kept to mature. Actually they are put in and stall-fed or sold as stores to be finished in England.

It is the reverse of Communism.

I quite agree. Remember this is one of the cases we have to deal with. I think the debate is not quite identified with the existing system, and that other departures have been advocated. But the point was raised that it would give at least the best chance to those people to make good. The point at issue is the division of land. The question is whether we will divide it into small holdings to be run individually with the greatest waste of man-power and inefficiently, or whether, by making a bold venture, we shall endeavour to run it on corporate lines, so that land can be made profitable. It is only by the introduction of the most modern methods and working on scientific principles that it can be done. The small farm offers very little facilities for production on a scientific scale, as compared with a large farm. The position is one that must be faced with justice. If you separate justice from reform, neither one nor the other is safe. It has been suggested that the Minister should avail himself to the full of the powers of the Land Act, and acquire lands anywhere for the relief of congestion. Is the proposal one to expropriate farmers in possession in order to carry out such a doubtful experiment? I think something is due to those who are in possession. I will say that each case should be judged on the merits. The problem, I admit, is a very difficult one to face. Asking the Minister to exact the full pound of flesh is not a helpful solution.

I do not know the policy of the Ministry about demesnes. I submit that it is not a wise policy to break up demesnes. There are, perhaps, instances where the exigencies of the situation might demand the breaking up of demesnes, but I would suggest that we need cultured classes in this country. If you break up demesnes you are automatically expropriating a number of our best citizens. I ask the Minister, as far as possible, to leave the demesnes intact.

The Minister should look at it from the point of view of national ethics, and think of the great influence on culture these demesnes may have. I admit that there are cases where it may be necessary to break up demesnes, but I think the principle ought to be the conservation of such places.

Mr. NOLAN

I desire to ask the Minister a few questions regarding the policy of his Department. He gave certain figures regarding the number of tenants in arrear. In some counties he stated that twelve instalments were due. If that is so, I think it is unfair to prosecute people who only owe one instalment for perhaps three or four months while others are allowed to be in arrears to the extent of twelve instalments. That means that some people have not paid annuities for 4½ years. The Minister stated that it is the same people are always in arrears.

Mr. HOGAN (Minister for Lands and Agriculture)

For the last three or four years.

Mr. NOLAN

The Department allows the same people to continue in arrear, but prosecutes people who are only in arrears for one or two months. The policy adopted is, I believe, the policy of least resistance. The man who pays well is prosecuted, but the bad payer is allowed to drag along. I have a number of cases to which my attention was drawn from County Limerick. I have a case on the Dixon estate where a man, whose holding was vested on the 17th July, 1924, got no receivable order and no demand for payment until he got a civil bill.

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE

took the Chair.

I have a newspaper here which contains a report of the cases that came into court. The report covers a whole page of the newspaper. I did not say that the instalments ranged over a period of nine years. What I did refer to was the proceedings not being taken for the recovery of nine instalments. That would cover a period of four and a half years, there being two instalments to be paid in each year. The newspaper contained a report of these cases and gives full particulars of them all. In some of the cases the instalments sought to be recovered ranged from three to eight. In one case as many as twelve instalments were due. The non-payment of these annuities means, as far as the rates in the County Limerick are concerned, that relief to the extent of 2/-. in the £ is being held up.

Mr. GOREY

Were these proceedings in respect of annuities due under previous Acts or under the Act of 1923?

Mr. NOLAN

They come under every Act. All of them could not have been under the 1923 Act. We are only now in the year 1925, and, therefore, how could proceedings be taken for the recovery of five instalments under the 1923 Act?

I am not speaking for any particular person on this matter. I do not wish to be taken either as speaking against all the defaulters. I know there were some people in default because they had a lot of sickness in their families or because they lost cattle, or had some other genuine reason for not paying up. I know, however, that some of these defaulters are very well off, and that they should have been made pay up. They are so well off that they can run motorcars for pleasure all over the country and are able to go to race meetings. Certainly these people should not be allowed to go into arrears. If the Minister can see his way to go back to the six days' notice to clear off these arrears I will help him to put a penal charge of, say, 10 per cent. on defaulters from the date that the instalment becomes due. In that way the failure of these people to pay their annuities will not fall on the ratepayers. I think it is most unfair to have the good ratepayers penalised in this way for the default of the bad ratepayers. The Minister himself has admitted that it is the same people who are nearly always in arrears.

My opinion is that in this matter the Department takes the line of least resistance. The defaulters are allowed to escape too long, and the result is that all the burden is placed on the backs of the good ratepayers. In 1923 the State Solicitor in Limerick stated that he had over 4,000 prosecutions in respect of the collection of these annuities. In respect of some of these prosecutions he got costs which amounted to 7/9 in each case; in others his costs came to 15/9, and in more cases his costs amounted to 21/-. Before proceeding against these people he gave them no notice whatever. I know that if a good many of them did get the six days' notice they would have paid up, and there would have been no need to put them to all this expense. At all events, the prosecutions meant that a sum of practically £3,000 was put into the pocket of the State Solicitor. I do not know whether all that money goes to the State Solicitor or to the Minister for Finance, but I know that the costs that had to be paid amounted to that sum. I know, too, that some of my neighbours who were processed would have paid if they had got the six days' notice. One of my neighbours was put to £5 costs. He had to travel a distance of twenty-six miles to attend the court.

Mr. HOGAN

Why did he not pay on the receipt of the receivable order?

Mr. NOLAN

He would if he had it, but the banks would not take the money after a certain day. As a matter of fact, he had money hid in his house at the time, and he was afraid to let even his children know where he had it. That was during the disturbed times, and his house was more or less occupied by the Irregulars. I suggest that that was a very bad time to abolish the giving of the six days' notice.

As regards the distribution of land, I do not think the Government have any policy in regard to that. The inspectors are given a certain district, and have no power to go outside that. I know of one inspector who went down to a district to divide up an estate that had been bought over by a committee some time previous. The estate was being divided up, and there was some meadowing to be sold. Adjoining this estate, but in another parish, there was some cragg land, on which there were two or three uneconomic holders. There was a good deal of corcass land on the estate on which the inspector went down to carry out a scheme of division. This was the Westropp estate. The Committee was trying to carry out a policy of division that would be agreeable to all the parties. The Committee suggested that two of their neighbours who are uneconomic holders in the next parish, should get some of the land on this estate for meadowing. The inspector took out his maps and had a look at them. He looked at a farm in the adjoining parish in which these uneconomic holders lived. He asked, "Who owns that farm," and was told that it was a farm purchased three years previously by a gentleman who lives in Limerick. Then he said these people do not want land when they allow a place like, that to be sold. The result was that the hay on that farm was burnt two months afterwards, all because of the incitement of this man to do that.

Mr. WILSON

I am interested very much in connection with this question of arrears. The taking away of the guarantee fund in order to pay interest on land stock is a thing that affects every farmer in the Saorstát, and those of us who, in our own country, are paying our commitments promptly, and as well as we can, find it very difficult to understand the attitude of the Land Commission in permitting men in Limerick to be eight and nine instalments in arrear. If this statement is allowed to go without contradiction, and I have a resolution from the Farmers' Association of Limerick asking me to bring the matter before the House, and to ascertain why such a policy is permitted, I wonder why men in my area should be asked to pay regularly while their comrades in Limerick default in their payments and are allowed to default.

Mr. WILSON

Very well, I do not want to create friction but I hope the matter will not be lost sight of. I am not censuring the Land Commission and, having regard to the facts and figures of the Land Act of 1923, I must pay tribute to the Land Commission for the magnificent work they have done. When you look through the work which they have done it shows that that department is functioning. I hope this matter will be settled for the benefit of our people in the East who are paying their rents.

Mr. DAVIN

There was one point mentioned, I think, by Deputy Sears, which in my opinion has a good deal to do with regard to the complaints made in reference to the delay in the inspection and division of lands under the Act of 1923, namely, the lack of clerical and inspectorial assistance so far as the Land Commission is concerned. I notice that that staff of inspectors, of whom 28 are only temporary, is, for the year 1925/26, 82, as against 53 for the year 1924-25. The number of clerical employees, excluding the higher executive officers, for 1925/26, is 494, as against 379 for the year 1924/25. The reason I want to deal with this point is this. Six or seven months ago I made inquiries at the Land Commission as to the position in regard to a number of estates in my constituency, and I was informed, I think correctly, that a certain number had been inspected, and one or two estates had been purchased. I think it is the common experience of every Deputy, especially those representing rural areas, that the number of communications received in connection with applications for land is greater than the number of communications received in connection with any other matters in respect of the people whom we represent. I made inquiries about a week ago as to what was the position in connection with some of the same estates now, and I was told that the inspection work was done. Inspectors had been down and had suggested schemes of division, but, owing to the delay in completing the work so far as the clerical section of the work in connection with that division is concerned, the schemes of division and handing over had been held up. I was assured that the number of the staff employed in certain departments concerned with that particular part of the work is less than the staff in the same department in the years 1909 to 1914. It must be obvious that the amount of work thrown on the Land Commission, and particularly on the department to which I refer, as a result of the Act of 1923, should call for a greater number of qualified clerical assistants and inspectors if the work is to be done within a reasonable period. The number of temporary clerical hands for the present year is 120; but, when work of a highly technical nature such as this is being dealt with, one would look for a greater number of permanent qualified clerical assistants instead of a reduction in the number of permanent hands in the departments. Take the figures of the clerical officers. The number of clerical officers on the permanent staff in 1924-'25 was 208. In 1925-'26, when the work for this particular section should be much heavier, the number is 187, a reduction of twenty-one. There is also a reduction in the number of staff clerks of one. There is an increase in the number of higher executive officers of two as compared with last year. The point I want to make is this. I think it must be agreed that the work of three lady clerks, as I understand there are a number of lady clerks included in the 120, in the best commercial departments in the city is not more than the amount of work done by two junior clerks.

It has been a common experience in commercial circles, in banks and railways, that the work of lady clerks, especially in their earlier services, has to be revised in many cases. That is the average comparison that has been arrived at. However, I only mention the point to try to bring home to the Minister that the number of temporary clerks who have been brought in this year, and who undoubtedly have no previous experience in work of this kind, cannot balance the reduction that has taken place in the number of qualified men. There is a reduction of twenty-two in the qualified competent junior officers in this Department. If you had to increase the number of inspectors, whether temporary or permanent, from 53 to 82 in this year, one can reasonably assume, from an examination of these figures, that the clerical staff has not been increased in the same proportion as the inspectors have been increased. I have no complaint to make with regard to the preliminary work that has to be done by the inspectors, because in any case, where I have passed a communication to the Department requesting inspection work to be carried out where the case is urgent, my general experience is that that has been done inside a reasonable period, but the delay occurs in the clerical section, due to the reasons which I hope I have brought to the notice of the Minister. I would ask the Minister — and I think I can give him more reasons than I have already given him — to make an investigation into that aspect of the administration department of the Land Commission, and to see whether he can satisfy himself as to whether the amount of clerical assistance available is sufficient to cope with the work the inspectors have done in the preliminary stages of inspection and valuation and putting forward schemes for division.

I cannot congratulate the Minister in the same way as Deputy Shaw has done in regard to the amount of land that has been acquired and divided, and the huge number of acres of land that have already been inspected, for the simple reason that in the constituency I represent there is nothing like the amount of land available for division that there is in the case of the constituency which Deputy Shaw represents. I think, from what I can learn in regard to the operations of the inspectors, whether they be permanent or temporary, that they are not united in their views in regard to the relative claims of landless men, uneconomic holders, and representatives of evicted tenants. I think it would not be a waste of the Minister's time if he were to summon in his office a general meeting of all the inspectors and deliver to them his views, and in a very clear way inform them of what his intentions are in regard to the division of land. Of course, if he comes to this House and makes a speech in the way that he has spoken on this Estimate, not making it quite clear as to what he has in his mind or what he intends to do or what should be done by his inspectors in regard to the division of land, and in regard to the relative claims of the various people who have applied for land, it would be very difficult to ask him at this stage to make this clear at a public or a private meeting which he might address.

I am a Member of this House who, I think, can claim to be one of the few who have hardly ever put down a question in regard to the acquisition of land. I can recall one case where I did put down a question which I regarded as urgent. I have adopted the practice of forwarding to the Department of the Minister or to the Land Commission almost every communication I receive in regard to matters of this kind. I think the work of acquiring estates in the division I represent might be dealt with more speedily than it is being dealt with at the present time. In saying that, I want to add that there are exceptional cases which the Minister might take into consideration and deal with more quickly than he has been dealing with the cases I have in mind. I refer particularly to estates or large tracts of land that have been inspected, and where the men who worked on these estates for a number of years have been thrown out of work. I think the case for the speedy acquisition of land where men have become unemployed is a case that might be taken out of the ordinary run, so far as the work of the Land Commission is concerned. I have brought to the Minister's notice one or two cases of that kind, and I certainly cannot congratulate the Minister upon the speedy way that they have been dealt with. I hope he will take particular notice of cases of that kind and try to hurry up the remaining stages of the work in the Department, so that the land, if it is thought advisable, may be given to the men who have been working on these particular estates and who are already thrown out of employment.

Dáil Éireann debate - Wednesday, 17 Jun 1925