Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 1 Jun 1926

Vol. 16 No. 1

ESTIMATES FOR PUBLIC SERVICES. - IN COMMITTEE ON FINANCE.

Motion made by the Minister for Finance on the 31st May:—

Go ndeontar suim ná raghaidh thar £493,000 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, 1927, chun Tuarastail agus Costaisí Oifig Choimisiún Talmhan na hEireann (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 £493,000 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, 1927, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Irish 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. NOLAN

I want to say a few words. Generally the cry through the country is to divide the land. Nobody thinks of the price the owner has to get. I do not suggest that the land Commission or any other Department of the Government should confiscate the owners' rights, but I suggest when the land is being taken over that the owners should not get such a price as that the tenant who is put into occupation should have to pay an uneconomic rent. The annuity fixed on the holdings of the allottees is entirely beyond what they are able to pay. I know some cases in Leinster where those who have got the land have not tilled it, as they are not able. They are now setting it on something like the same principle as that which was carried on by the ranchers previously. What they are getting on the eleven months system is, in some cases, less than what they are paying to the Land Commission, and out of that the local rate has to be found and other expenses. Those lands taken over by the Land Commission are no better than derelict farms. The drains were not clear. The passages were in a bad state. The Land Commission are giving for this land something like £40 an acre, which means an annuity of £2 an acre from the tenant. The tenant does not mind what the price is when he is getting it, but when he is in for a few years I am afraid there will be more land trouble for another Government.

When a tenant gets a holding there are no dwelling houses, out-offices, gates or passages in it. He has to build a house, out-offices, drain the land, buy all the necessary implements for the farm and utensils for the house. All over the country an amount of arrears is due in the way of Land Commission annuities by those people who have taken over the land who have only the landlord's interest to redeem and who are paying only an annuity of 12/- to 14/- per Irish acre. At present we have, I am sorry to say, about forty thousand pounds worth of arrears of annuities in County Limerick due to the Land Commission. Very little of that is land divided recently. It was the landlord's interest that had to be bought. The Land Commission is dividing now land which is costing the tenant about £2 10s. an acre. It has been said that it is not essential for the allottee to have finance enough to work the land. I say it is essential because without finance you are only making a bad case worse. Those people must be in arrears in future. It will be hard to expect one body of men to be paying rates and annuities for another. Generally the Government have got credit for doing the right thing regardless of popularity.

People who are interested in the division of land are crying out for it all over the country. I am sorry that the Department have given way to that popular cry. It is up to the Government not to give too high a price for the land. As I said before, I do not suggest that there should be confiscation. There should be proper value, but how to arrive at that value is a difficulty. Recently an estate was taken over in Enfield. The Land Commission offered £48,000. The owner appealed, and the Judicial Commissioner increased the offer to £51,000, on the ground that the owner was able to show his average figure for the previous five years. There is no comparison between the value of agricultural produce five years ago and to-day. Those who set the land at that time were getting more than three times per acre what they are now getting. The value of cattle was about 100/- a cwt. at that time for all classes, whereas now it is only about 50/- for the best beef. Land has gone down in value by about 50 per cent. during the past twelve months, and it is not down to bedrock yet. What I would advise the Land Commission to do is to concentrate on the land in their hands for the last fifteen years, divide that, and take over no other land until the land that they possess is divided. I do not know how much land there is in the Land Commission which is not yet vested under the 1903 Act. I put a question in regard to that some time ago, but the Land Commission did not answer. I do not know whether they were afraid to answer, but I asked for information as to how many estates were in their hands under the Act of 1903.

I was told that in order to compile these statistics it would take a considerable time, with the result that the staff would have to be taken off more useful work. If there were anything like proper accounts in the Land Commission I do not think that it would take a man ten minutes to find that information out. In any case, when the question was put down, I think it should have been answered. It is evident that they did not want to disclose the actual loss sustained by the State in regard to holdings which have not yet been vested, and which are paying interest in lieu of rent at 3½ instead of 3¼ per cent. That would nearly meet the income tax of the owner, but that in itself is a loss. Not being able to get the figures from the Land Commission, I got figures from my own area in connection with the Dixon estate, where there are sixty tenants who signed an agreement to purchase nearly twenty years ago. The average annuity that they are paying by interest in lieu of rent is £14. They are paying £840 a year, and in twenty years they would have paid £16,800, which is a dead loss to the State. I would suggest to the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, if he were here, that that is blood and money going out of the country without protection to the farmer. It is free trade blood and money. Some of the tenants, as a protest, refused to pay their annuities in the last few years. One man was brought to court, and, having given his reasons for not paying, the judge refused to give a decree against him. The excuse given by the State solicitor was that the landlord was not able to prove title. A landlord who is not able to prove title in twenty years has no title to prove. I would suggest that that estate be taken over.

Mr. HOGAN

Regardless of title?

Mr. NOLAN

If he cannot prove title in twenty years he has no title. These tenants recently refused to pay, and they were processed and went to court. I do not know whether they lodged a defence or not when they got the civil bill, but they got no chance of making a defence in court, as they never heard the case called. They are now in the list of defaulting annuitants which amounts to the enormous sum of £40,000 a year. That means 2/- in the £ in the rates for County Limerick.

Mr. HOGAN

If the Deputy wants to make a calculation he should do so accurately. The exact figure is £29,600.

Mr. NOLAN

If the Minister does not mind, I will read a reply which I got only yesterday from the Department of Local Government. "The sum of £40,492 represents the amount of arrears of annuities outstanding in February, 1926, which were met out of the local taxation grant that would otherwise have been paid to the county council." Is the Minister for Local Government correct or is the Minister for Agriculture correct?

Mr. HOGAN

The Minister for Local Government is correct, and I am also correct. The Deputy knows that February is the month in which the draw is taken from the Guarantee Fund after the December gale, and in that time the arrears from the previous gale are at their highest. A large amount of arrears exists up to the end of February, but then money begins to come in, and the amount of arrears is generally reduced, after a month or so, and recouped to the Guarantee Fund, so that there is no loss to anybody. I have explained that frequently, and if the Deputy wants to make a case he should quote facts. The Deputy knows that after the gale day the arrears are at their highest, but, later on, they are reduced and paid into the Guarantee Fund. It is no use, when you want to make a case, to flourish figures which are not accurate.

Mr. NOLAN

Then in that case the Department of Local Government want to make the situation as bad as they can?

Mr. HOGAN

The Minister for Local Government, in the letter referred to, when he stated that at the end of February, on the draw from the Guarantee Fund, the arrears were so much, was perfectly right, but the Deputy understands the implication of that quite well, and knows that the arrears are always biggest a month after gale day. He knows also that these arrears begin to be paid in the months of March and April, and that as they are paid in they are immediately recouped to the Guarantee Fund, so that nobody suffers.

Mr. NOLAN

If the arrears are paid in the month of April, how have we in County Limerick men five years in arrears, as the Minister told me six months ago?

Mr. HOGAN

That is another red herring. There are people in arrears for three, four or five years, as the Deputy knows well. I have not said anything in the last five minutes that is contrary to that. What I have said is that the arrears are £29,000 now, and that they were something like £40,000 on the date of the withdrawal from the Guarantee Fund. I was never on the question of whether these arrears were made up of half-years, one and a half-years, or two years.

Mr. NOLAN

The Minister said £29,000 and the Minister for Local Government said £40,000. I will take the average, which is about £35,000. That would be 1/6 in the £ on the rates in County Limerick.

Mr. HOGAN

The Deputy is too innocent for anything.

Mr. NOLAN

Even taking £30,000 it would amount to about 1/4 in the £ on the County Limerick rates. The rates that the Limerick farmers have to pay for themselves are high enough without having to pay on behalf of their neighbours because of the inefficiency of the Department in collecting the arrears.

Mr. HOGAN

What about the County Council?

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

Let the Deputy continue now.

Mr. NOLAN

It is hard enough, as I say, for farmers in Co. Limerick to meet their own rates and annuities, without having to meet their neighbours', and I warn the Minister and the Government that if the arrears of annuities are not collected the ratepayers next year will not pay those of the defaulting annuitants. Let the Government take that now for what it is worth. I advised people last year to pay their rates because of the unemployment that existed and because of other circumstances, but I understand that about £80,000 of arrears of rates are due, because of the inefficiency of the Land Commission.

Mr. HOGAN

The Land Commission are to blame for that also, of course?

Mr. NOLAN

Actually £97,000 of rates are due, though, of course, that does not come into this matter. The reason why a good many of them are not paying is because they do not want to pay their neighbours' annuities. As I said before, a good deal of that land is set in grazing for less than the owners have to pay the Land Commission by way of annuities, and that is certainly not a happy position to be in. There are a good many cases in the country of farmers, men who are not dairy farmers but who might be described to a certain extent as ranchers, who will get an agent to take the names of those who are anxious to get land in their districts. That list is sent to the Land Commission, which in turn gets in touch with the owner of the land, and gives him the actual value of the land. That is engineered by the owners themselves. The Land Commission should not take over any land from these people without considering its value better.

Mr. HOGAN

I want this specific statement repeated. I gather that the Deputy is making some serious charge, but I cannot say what it is. Would the Deputy repeat that?

Mr. NOLAN

The owners of big farms throughout the country, particularly in the poor districts, get an agent of theirs to take the names of neighbours who are desirous of getting land. These neighbours claim to be uneconomic holders or landless men. They send a list of names to the Land Commission, and the Land Commission gets in touch with the owner of the land who has taken this step. The owner pretends that he is not anxious to sell, but the Land Commission say there is a demand for the land, and they send down an inspector to value it. They make an offer for the land, and they promise to give the owner a farm, very often twice as good as the land he has, as well as giving him a price. That is a fact, no matter how much the Minister shakes his head. I know it, and I know that the Land Commission inspectors are going round the country asking people if there are any areas that might be divided.

Mr. HOGAN

That is their job.

Mr. GOREY

To keep a good job going.

Mr. NOLAN

Yes, it is done. There is no use in the Minister denying it. Why should they be anxious to lose a good job? A good job is worth minding, and there are a good many unemployed. I impress upon the Minister and the Government the need for not being too anxious at present to take land from the ranchers, not to concentrate principally on the land they have divided, where agreements have been signed, but where the land has not been vested, and on the land that has come to the Land Commission from the Congested Districts Board. I think when they have that done they will be able to get other land at lower prices, because the much-abused rancher is, like the publican, dying a natural death. He is not able to make ends meet with the price he pays for store cattle and the price he sells them at.

Mr. GOREY

What evidence has the Deputy that the publican is dying?

Mr. NOLAN

I will leave the Deputy to answer that.

Mr. GOREY

I have very little to say on this Vote. A good deal of what Deputy Nolan has said with regard to the Land Commission going slow is sense. Unfortunately, in response to the widespread demand, perhaps an ill-considered demand, of a few years ago to break up the land, the Government was induced to put the machinery in motion, and then paid too much for land. Not alone was too much paid for land, but the land did not find its way to the people who desired to have it broken up. I know several estates, some in my own county, on which the workmen were induced to join in the demand for breaking them up, and the result is that they have found themselves with practically nothing. If the people who get the land have not capital they get nothing to do, practically speaking, so that their last state is very much worse than their first; they are neither workmen nor farmers. I know cases where they have been given houses and plots of about four statute acres, and now, when they have no employment and are not able to live on the four acres, their condition is pitiable. I do not know how they will get along. The men I have in mind are only about six months in possession of these four acres, and what their position will be in a few years time I do not know. These people were induced to join in the demand for the breaking up of all land, even land that was fairly well farmed and employing a couple of hands. I think that that was an ill-considered procedure, a procedure that was engineered by people who wanted to get popularity. We heard a series of questions to-day about breaking up everything. I do not know what the conditions in these cases are, but I say this publicly to the labourers, that they should consider well the position before they join in these demands for the breaking up of properties, giving decent employment, in order to accommodate a few people by the cross-roads who want land.

Mr. MORRISSEY

Would the Deputy give the same advice to the farmers' sons?

Mr. GOREY

Well, I think the same advice would be good for both. At present you have people who were in employment and whose family had the means of subsistence, but who have not it to-day. I speak now of people whom Deputies on those benches are supposed to represent. Where farming is carried on as it is in Meath, and certainly in Westmeath, it may be well to speed up operations under the 1923 Act. But where these conditions do not apply, the Land Commission ought to go very slowly. When the Land Commission breaks up large farms I say that the labourers on the estate deserve more consideration than the people who are trying to get the land by talk and speeches at cross-roads, by agitation and by what was known formerly as the use of the hazel. I think that if too much money is paid for this land it will entail too large an annuity, thus putting a millstone round the necks of future occupiers that they will not be able to bear.

Mr. DAVIN

Whose fault is that?

Mr. GOREY

What does the Deputy mean?

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

He had better not tell us.

Mr. DAVIN

The Deputy knows very well what I mean.

Mr. GOREY

I do not even know what the Deputy knows. Perhaps the Deputy when he comes to speak will make himself intelligible. He does not appear to be intelligible now. One thing he has done is that he has put me off the thread of my remarks. Perhaps he is satisfied with that.

Mr. E. DOYLE

I was listening to this debate for a couple of hours last night and for some time to-day, and it has been very interesting. I may point out one thing in connection with the division of land, and that is that in the county of Carlow there are about 9,000 acres of land registered as untenanted, and not one acre of that land has been divided. There are something like 551 acres of land on which the price has been agreed. These are the figures I got from the Land Commission some time ago. I was rather surprised when I heard Deputy Gorey saying that some of the people who have got land are neither workmen nor farmers. I agree that these people could not live on four acres of land. That is what we want to end—uneconomic holdings. I think there is plenty of land in the Deputy's constituency to give land to the uneconomic holders. I have here correspondence from a number of people dealing with cases where farms are being divided. On the Harvey Flood Estate at Farmley, Cuffesgrange, where there were 1,100 acres, one farmer, who had one hundred acres of land, got ten acres. The gardener got two acres only, and the man in the lodge two acres only.

In a different farm that was to be divided, Deputy Gorey has got a large part for grazing, notwithstanding that the Deputy has 200 acres of land of his own. The Deputy is right when he says the land is not being properly divided. If the Land Commission does not try to have the land, especially in my constituency, divided as soon as possible, and not to have the people driven out of this country to seek bread, there is only one thing that will bring about a division of the land, and that will be a revolution. I see no other way out of it when I hear sentiments such as were expressed by some Deputies.

Mr. GOREY

Might I intervene to say that a portion of this land on this particular estate to which the Deputy refers was advertised to be let by auction? The Land Commission is retaining a portion of it for migrants. I happened to want some of it, and I bought it at a public auction. In fact, there was nobody else to bid. These are the facts of the case. I do not know what message the Deputy wanted to convey to the public, but that is the position. With regard to the uneconomic holdings to which I have referred, they are uneconomic holdings of a new creation—created within the last six months. These uneconomic holdings were not there before. They were created, and they are there now.

Mr. MORRISSEY

Why did not the Land Commission give them the land that they gave to Deputy Gorey?

Mr. GOREY

Deputy Gorey has not been given any land at all.

Mr. SEARS

I wish to make an appeal to the Minister in respect to a different type of tenant from the kind that we have heard discussed here. In my constituency, in fact in the entire counties of Mayo and Galway, the majority of the tenants live on holdings under a valuation of £5. In the more western portions of these counties the average valuation is down to £4, £3, and even 30s. valuation. Now, imagine the sort of living these people have to make out of holdings of that sort. There is practically no living there at all for them, and they are in a very poor way. They have been for years and years hoping and hoping that their lot would be improved. Their hopes appeared very bright when the Land Act of 1923 was passed. We told them that that Act would come into operation in 1924, or at least in 1925, and now we are in the year 1926. Perhaps we were all very much to blame. We did not understand the amount of work involved in the dividing up of the ranches, and that of necessity it would be very slow. We now understand that it is very slow work, indeed. But the people are getting impatient, and they do not understand that. Their impatience is very natural. I am convinced that the Land Commission is working at high pressure at this very difficult work. I would appeal to the Minister to keep that pressure up, and I would appeal to the Land Commission to do one thing that I do not think they have yet done—they should have selected the poorer areas to be dealt with first. If they find one area where the average holding is under £4 valuation, and they find another area where the holdings are under £6 valuation, or £7 valuation, I think certainly that, as a matter of fair play, they should give a preference to the poorer areas first. They should send down their inspectors and concentrate on the poorer areas first, and release these people from the very terrible state in which they are. I regret very much to hear that there is a movement in some parts of the country to obstruct the work of finding land in these better-off areas—those thinly-populated areas—land to which large farmers in Mayo and Galway could be transplanted.

I saw where Colonel O'Callaghan Westropp said at a meeting that it would be far better for those small farmers if they allowed those large ranches near Dublin to remain undivided, as the land would be more useful for fattening store cattle. The land is too good for the people and is only good enough for the bullocks. There is something, of course, to be said for the argument that some land may be good for fattening store cattle, but if a man wants that land to fatten his cattle, let him not say that he is doing it in the interests of the poor people who want larger farms. To say that is hypocrisy. The holdings that I have been referring to are not only very small, but the land on them is very bad. Some of them are crop sick. They have not been laid down in grass for over 100 years, and some of them for more than 200 years. When you hear a man promoting an agitation to obstruct the release of people from these holdings on the grounds that the land near Dublin is too good for the people, and that it is wanted for the cattle, all one can say is that that sort of opposition is sure to stir up very bad feeling, and in the end will not serve the interests of those who want the ranches retained for fattening store cattle. I urge on the Minister to speed up as much as possible the work of dividing the land in the western counties. We have not any fault to find with the inspectors down there at present. They are working very hard sending forward schemes, and I only hope that the schemes will be returned promptly, and that the remainder of the work will be speedily undertaken.

Mr. CONLAN

Colonel O'Callaghan Westropp may have been speaking in the interests of those congests to whom Deputy Sears refers when he warned them off the County Clare. They might not get a very good reception there. I think Deputy Nolan has given fairly good advice to the Land Commission with regard to their action at present. If land is divided, and the new holders have to pay an excessive rate per acre for the land they get, then their last condition will be worse than their first. I know cases where land has been divided and where the annuity comes to £2 per acre. If you add to that 10/- per acre for local taxes, you have an impossible annuity put upon these people. We all know that the old Celtic hunger for land still exists, and that men will be induced to take up land upon impossible terms in the hope that times may improve or that something may turn up by which their annuities may be reduced, but I suggest it would be a wrong policy to allow them to go in on land on those terms. I would like to allude to a matter which may not be germane to this particular discussion. I refer to estates purchased by committees. The estates were purchased by these committees on money which they obtained on loan from joint stock banks. The committees now find that the price at which the Land Commission is prepared to take over the land is a great deal less than what they paid for it originally. These people, having obtained advances from the banks and guaranteed the loans will, of course, be liable for the money, and if something is not done in the way of coming to their assistance it will simply mean ruin for them. I hope the Minister and the Land Commission will take their position into consideration and try to do something to relieve them from the awkward position in which they are at present.

Mr. VAUGHAN

I desire to draw the Minister's attention to decrees got against tenants in the County Cork. Great dissatisfaction prevails amongst the tenants with regard to the machinery set up for the collection of their annuities. It seems that where a decree has been got by the State Solicitor the tenant sends on the amount of the decree with costs, including the receivable order, to the State Solicitor, who holds it. The latter, it seems, does not send on the receivable order to the Land Commission. The tenant waits for but does not get his receivable order from the Land Commission, and the next thing he gets is a second civil bill for another instalment of the annuity which has fallen due. This is a matter that I would like the Minister to look into. I believe it is a general thing all over Cork with the State Solicitors. I would like the Minister to inspect their books over a period, at least, of three months to see that they are correct, and that all the money collected on behalf of the Land Commission is transferred immediately to the Land Commission. If that is done there will be no dissatisfaction among the people. There is another matter I wish to deal with, and that is the case of chronic defaulters. It seems that Cork, like every other county, has been deprived of its share of the Agricultural Grant because of the fact that there are so many of these chronic defaulters. I would like to know from the Minister if, in his amending Land Bill, he is taking power to deal with these people, and thus to relieve the local ratepayers of the heavy charges that at present fall upon them because of the remissness of these chronic defaulters.

Mr. HALL

I do not rise for the purpose of criticising the Land Commission. To a large extent I am very well satisfied with the progress it has made in my constituency within the last few months. There is one particular case that was brought to the notice of the Land Commission about two years ago, while it was also mentioned in this House on more than one occasion. It is that of a number of congests situate at a place called The Commons, near Navan. There are, approximately, 50 congests in this little area, and there is a population of between 300 and 400. The position is very acute there. The poverty of the people in that particular area is equal to the poverty of the people in the Rosses, or in any portion of the West of Ireland. The people living on The Commons, at Navan, have not enough land to enable them to graze a sufficient number of cows to keep up a continual supply of milk for the needs of their households. The result is that they are compelled to walk a mile or a mile and a half to the town of Navan to purchase milk at the highest price. Very often they are obliged to return without it, as the supply there is not equal to the demand. Deputations have been heard by the Land Commission on several occasions in connection with this matter. Very flowery promises have been made to the representatives of these people, but so far nothing has been done for them. I have files and files of correspondence dealing with this matter, while the unfortunate people themselves went to the expense of employing a solicitor to put their case properly before the Land Commission. I think it is very unfair that for over two years they should be left in the position that they are in to-day.

Last November I was informed that the Buchanan Estate at The Commons, Navan, would be dealt with expeditiously, but nothing has been done there since. On another occasion I was told that an inspector was to visit this property with a view to its acquisition. My information up to last Friday was that an inspector has not been down there. That is simply appalling. Undoubtedly the Land Commission have divided a good deal of land throughout the country, but nowhere did they divide land where the demand was so great for it as in this particular place. As I mentioned, this property is right beside the town of Navan, which has a big population. It is a serious matter to leave the people suffering as they are while around them are so many big farms. I hope the Minister will take note of this matter and that it will be dealt with as expeditiously as possible so as to relieve the distress there. Another matter I wish to mention, but I do not want to stress it very much, is that there are objections to a certain class of people getting land. Instances have come under my notice in County Meath of old people being allotted portions of land—very feeble old people who are not able to work the land and have no sons, daughters or other relatives who would be able to work an economic or any other class of farm. Giving land to that particular type of people does not tend to increase production, and it means leaving the lands in the same position as they were before allotment. There is a case I want to refer to in the Barnewall Estate at Trimlestown, Trim. I do not want to mention names, but if the Land Commission look it up they will find that an old man there who has no male relatives capable of working land has been allotted land. He is supposed to have some money of his own and he will be able to pay the annuities, but he will not be able to use the land productively. There is no benefit derived from the division of land in that way.

Another danger in connection with the division of land is the allotting of it to people without capital. These people are unable to work the land but they put up the case to the inspector of the Land Commission that they are capable of doing so while in reality some landowners in the locality, probably men for whom the applicants might be working, take the land and work it in their names, with the result that the landowners reap the benefit of the division of that land and get the profit out of it. Again, the allotment of land in that way does not serve the purpose for which it was intended. I understand such a thing as I have mentioned occurred in a case where a parcel of land was allotted to a man who declined to accept it. After some days he sent word to the Land Commission that he would have it. That was after he had a consultation with his master, who came to the Post Office and sent a wire in this man's name saying he would accept the land, and the land was afterwards again allotted to him. That is a serious matter and should be looked into. I wish to refer to the Rathregan estate. I certainly consider it is altogether unreasonable for the Land Commission to hand this estate of in or about 515 acres over to one migrant, leaving the whole estate practically as it was heretofore, with the result that it will be of no material benefit to the people of the locality. There are some uneconomic holders in that particular district, and as far as my information goes there is no other estate in the district to meet the demands of these uneconomic holders who are endeavouring to exist around Rathregan estate. There are some nine or ten uneconomic holders there who desire to get holdings on that estate.

I consider, notwithstanding the fact that a migrant is going to be put there, that a certain portion of that estate should be set aside so as to add to the holdings of the uneconomic holders. I am not protesting against a migrant being brought in, for I admit I was the first who brought this estate before the Land Commission a couple of years ago, and I then mentioned that there would be room for migrants from the west on this estate. I asked, however, that the Land Commission should give consideration to the few uneconomic holders there who have no other means of extending their holdings except by getting portion of the land of this estate. I cannot understand why the Land Commission were in such a hurry to acquire this farm and take it over from Mr. Wallis when an immediate demand for the land was not there. Apparently the demand is not there by reason of the fact that the Land Commission have thought well to let the land out on a system under which it has not been let out heretofore. I think if the Land Commission had not proof positive that they could hand the land over to some person to work it, or become an occupant on the farm, they should have given consideration to the plea Mr. Wallace put to them to allow him to retain the land until he had disposed of the stock he had grazing on that farm. He had lambs there and other stock, but he was hurried out of the farm on the supposition that someone else was going to walk in a day or two later.

I think Mr. Wallis was treated in an unreasonable way. The Land Commission can take time now and let the land the same as they did with the Barnewall Estate when it was let for twelve months. I ask that consideration be given to the people of the locality when the estate is being allotted. Deputy Heffernan, when speaking on the division of lands, said this matter should be approached from a non-party point of view. As far as I am aware, I have more dealings with the land question than any other Deputy in the House, for I have it for breakfast, dinner and supper, and I can say that there has been no party capital made out of this question. It is wrong to insinuate that the matter of the acquisition and division of lands is based on party lines. I certainly repudiate that, and I say that I never found it so in the Land Commission.

As regards the Committee lands, the Minister on the 11th December last said he was going to introduce legislation to deal with them. I would like the Minister to do something in this respect immediately. There are many farms in County Meath that were purchased through the banks in the years 1919-1920. Undoubtedly the people who purchased them paid considerably more than the farms were worth. There was one estate at Creemore, Drumree, near Dunshaughlin. That estate was purchased by twenty tenants, and undoubtedly they paid too much for it. They find themselves in the very unfortunate position of having to meet interest and principal in the banks. They pay 6½ per cent. interest, and they find it a great hardship. On many occasions they have not been able to meet the principal, owing to the fact that they have to pay off the interest and have had very poor returns from their holdings. I would like the Minister to take some steps to deal with this and other cases of the sort. There is a somewhat similar case at Boyerstown, Navan, where five people purchased an estate under similar circumstances to those at Creemore. It would be advisable to have cases of that sort dealt with as soon as possible.

On numerous occasions I tabled questions with the object of getting from the Minister the intention of the Land Commission regarding the Kennedy lands at Trim, Peterstown, Newtown, and Clonobon. I never could get any satisfaction. I was invariably told about the Land Commission having a farm at Ardenew, but that farm is only 120 acres in extent, while there are fully 425 acres at Trim. Mr. Kennedy has a very large holding attached to his residence at Rathcore, near Enfield, but he also has this other holding at Ardenew, near Longwood, County Meath.

Does the Land Commission ever consider they are treating the uneconomic holders, the people who desire to get accommodation for stock, fairly? The Land Commission have refused to acknowledge the situation that exists there; they refuse to recognise the demand for grazing and tillage accommodation. The Kennedy lands at Trim surround the town; the town is practically built on this farm. The people need accommodation very badly. Milk is very scarce. Many persons are desirous of taking advantage of a cow plot, if such were provided, and I think every effort should be made to facilitate them.

Two years ago, in reply to a question, I was informed by the Minister that the Land Commission were considering the question of acquiring a fairly large field known as Lockanash, near Trim, the property of Lord Dunsany, and the intention was to convert it into a cow plot for the accommodation of the people of Trim. We heard nothing about that since. I am given to understand that some twelve months ago this field passed into the hands of a local farmer, and the people are now left without it. I consider that is not treating the people fairly. It is time the Land Commission dealt with this vacant piece of country belonging to Mr. Kennedy. It is not used for any other purpose than what Deputy Heffernan referred to yesterday— finishing live stock. We have any amount of farms similarly situated.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

Has the Deputy ever considered what would happen if every other Deputy raised a series of questions relating to his own area and the Minister did not answer? Has he ever considered—a more terrible case—what would happen if every Deputy raised questions concerning his own area and the Minister answered each point raised?

Mr. HALL

I have not given consideration to these matters. I do say this is the only time we can speak to the Minister in regard to what is really a grievance throughout the country.

Mr. HOGAN

Why not the system of question and answer?

Mr. HALL

We have a right to tell the Minister what the existing grievances are. We cannot do it through the medium of questions, and if we are not permitted to do it by means of discussions in the House, we cannot do it at all. I think I am quite within my right in mentioning specific cases.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

I would have stopped the Deputy if I considered he was not within his rights; but I am asking the Deputy to consider the results of every Deputy exercising his rights and the more appalling result—I call it appalling—of the Minister exercising his right to reply to questions relating to every estate. A few moments ago the Deputy mentioned a particular field. He said it was a large field. Think of all the large fields in Saorstát Eireann.

Mr. HALL

I believe that the Ceann Comhairle has taken a wrong view of the situation. The reason I am giving these instances is that there are Land Commission officials present; they can take a note of the matters referred to and, without any reply being given by the Minister, they can deal with those matters.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

The Deputy is not talking to the Land Commission officials; he is talking to me.

Mr. HALL

That is quite so, but when these things are mentioned the Minister can have a note taken of them and later on they can be dealt with. That is the reason why I make these specific references. There has been very little progress made, and I would impress on the Minister the necessity that exists for speeding up matters. The Minister should endeavour to expedite the acquisition and division of land.

References have been made here to the holding up of the Land Commission in the carrying out of its functions under the 1923 Act. That does not apply to the people of Meath. That county has been charged with displaying opposition to anybody getting land in the county outside the people residing there. The people of Meath do not argue on that line. They believe they are entitled to first consideration, and it is natural that they would claim first consideration. There are many acres of land in County Meath that can be taken over by the Land Commission and, after supplying the needs of the people of the county, it is my opinion that there will be a surplus of land to meet the requirements of migrants from the west or other portions of the Saorstát. But there is no use all the time denying the people of Meath the right to the land of Meath.

There are numerous evicted tenants in Meath, or the sons of evicted tenants, who claim their right to the land, and it is certainly appalling that the sons of evicted tenants are turned down by the Land Commission. I feel that the Land Commission should treat these people more equitably than they have been treated. It is unreasonable to see the son of an evicted tenant, when he makes his application for a holding, and is prepared to work it, pushed out by a man perhaps in receipt of a State pension. Very often such men who are new arrivals in the county have sufficient money to purchase land in the open market. That is an unreasonable way of dealing with the question. Men who are unable to purchase land in the open market should be considered by the Land Commission when they are distributing lands. There are numerous cases where people who were quite capable of purchasing tenanted land for themselves in the open market got land from the Land Commission when they were dividing farms up. That is unfair and unreasonable, and is not a proper way of dealing with the situation.

I was told some time ago of a man who came to Trim and got hold of some land, notwithstanding the fact that he had twenty-three acres already elsewhere. I was told that he was given a holding of thirteen acres, while he had twenty-three acres already. I think that is an abuse. It is time that the Land Commission went into this question. They should cease giving land to people who are not entitled to it, and give it instead to those who are entitled to it.

As to the matter of taking over land upon which rates were due, I got a reply to a question which I put down, and from that I gather that the position is rather a curious one. According to the answer that I got, the Land Commission will hold the incoming tenant accountable for the rates due. The new tenant may have come in since the rate warrants were served, or he may have come in since March, or the first week in April. I hold that it is unreasonable and unfair to ask him to pay rates due by the late occupier. I think the late occupier should be compelled to pay, or else the Land Commission should accept the liability, and meet the debt.

Mr. T. MURPHY

I have very little complaint to make about the manner in which the Land Commission does its work generally, and I shall confine myself to one or two small matters on this Vote. A very large portion of the constituency I represent has been scheduled as a congested area. So far as I know very little has been done to relieve the position there, and I ask the Minister to state exactly what it is proposed to do for the people of that congested area and what immediate relief they can expect. I would ask him to tell us what attempts will be made to relieve the awful position prevailing in the islands off the coast of West Cork. The people there are in a miserable state, and temporary relief will not, to my mind, mean very much. There must be some radical cure for the position.

The difficulty I see about the position in the West Cork area is that locally very little land is available for distribution. For that reason, in regard to any land available for distribution for the relief of congestion, any steps for the taking over of that land by the Land Commission ought to be definite.

In one particular case I took very serious exception to the action of the Land Commission or the people who were responsible. I know of a particular holding, very close to the town in which I am living, where an extraordinary position has arisen. The owner is a bank official resident in Washington, America, for the last thirty years. The land has been let for grazing for the whole of that time, practically. As a result of action taken some time ago the Land Commission became interested in having the place acquired. An inspector was sent down and particulars were obtained. A preliminary objection was made on behalf of the landlord. I imagine the objection was lodged on behalf of a man who had no interest in it, and who, in fact, signified his intention of getting rid of the place if he could. There were also some local shopkeepers who had mortgages on the place and who were interested in preventing the people getting it. At any rate a preliminary objection was made with the Land Commission, and, curiously enough, the proceedings were discontinued.

As a result of further representations the case was re-opened. An objection was again taken, but before the objection was heard the representative of the owner in the country had disposed of it. People living around this particular district, who have no opportunity of getting a sod of land in that district for the next twenty years, and who unfortunately have not a bit of ground to use for a potato garden or anything else, find themselves confronted with the fact that a farm of seventy or eighty acres is now held by a person who has already sold two farms. I am satisfied that this very shady transaction was effected for the purpose of defeating the objects of the Land Act, hoodwinking the officials of Land Commission. I am quite aware that I am not entitled to criticise the action of the learned judge who decided the case, but I am criticising the action of the Land Commission Department that allowed the sale of this farm to a man who already held two, thereby depriving the unfortunate people there, who would make very good use of it, of getting a bit of land.

Now I want to make a few general remarks. I was very surprised to hear statements made like that uttered by Deputy Heffernan. I have a shrewd suspicion that a good many people are thinking that way, but it was amazing that a statement like that should be made in this House. The effect of the statement was that it would be unwise to break up land used for cattle purposes and to have it divided. That argument amounts to this: that cattle and bullocks and things like that are more important in the eyes of some people than human beings and human happiness and human progress. I am afraid, in spite of the very patriotic statement made by Deputy McKenna, Deputy Heffernan is not following on the lines adopted by his forefathers, who were prominent in the agitation that was part of the land movement. Deputy Heffernan is not following the lines of the people who proposed the resolutions to which Deputy McKenna referred. That is perhaps the mentality of a good many people who profess to be interested in agriculture today. Probably no one would accuse gentlemen like Colonel O'Callaghan Westropp of Clare, or Sir John Keane of Waterford, or Colonel Gibbon of Wexford, or Mr. O'Gorman of Cork of being anxious to break up the ranches in this country.

Nobody would accuse them of being interested in the welfare of the evicted tenants, and I am quite sure that Deputy Doyle will realise that his plea for the evicted tenants would have very little support from people like them. What I regret very much is that that frame of mind has penetrated the minds of people like Deputy Heffernan who, if they followed in their forefathers' footsteps, should take up an entirely different line. I would like to add my plea to that of Deputy Doyle's on behalf of the evicted tenants. I am quite satisfied that the evicted tenants, generally, deserve very well of the people of this country. I am quite satisfied that they deserve well of the Government, and I am equally satisfied that they have been very seriously neglected in many places. I would urge upon the Minister to consider the few points that I have tried to make—the possibility of doing something in the very poor island areas in West Cork for the congests there, and of re-opening, if it is possible to re-open, this particular case referred to, where a very shady and dishonest transaction, in my opinion, has taken place. I would urge on him to remember the need for doing something for the evicted tenants of the country when amending legislation in connection with the Land Act is taken up. I quite appreciate the work the Minister has done. I have no quarrel with the work that has been done. I would like to pay a tribute to the manner in which the Minister has handled the work of his Department, so far as I know. Any few criticisms that I have offered are criticisms of a minor nature. I would like to say that I feel that very much has been done by the Land Commission and that if some of the officials of the Land Commission were as keen as the Minister, perhaps something more could have been done.

Mr. DALY

I think one of the greatest obstacles to the division of land is the bringing in of congests from outside areas, especially into my district, where the young men are already going to Canada. They say, and their fathers and mothers say, that it is a terrible thing that they should have to go away to Canada while men are brought in from other districts to take up the land that perhaps their forefathers were evicted from. I agree with them. At the same time, the Minister for Agriculture is placed in a rather difficult position, and I would like to help him out. I suggest that he should bring the single men into these districts and get them married to the girls in the districts. That may alleviate the trouble that he will meet with in taking them there. I will give him all the assistance I can.

Mr. JAMES COSGRAVE

I am anxious to hear from the Minister what steps have been taken to acquire the remaining portion of the Pollock estate in County Galway. People on five or six ranches of close on 5,000 acres on this estate claim to have tenancies from the landlord. If they have I hold they are bogus tenancies, because they were got, as far as I understand, immediately before the passing of the Act for the purpose of evading it. I would like the Minister to give some explanation of this matter. I have only to say, in conclusion, that I endorse everything that has been said by Deputy Michael Doyle and Deputy Murphy with reference to the claims of the evicted tenants. We all know that evicted tenants made the greatest sacrifices that anyone could be called upon to make. They sacrificed their homes and their families for the good of their country, and it is a pity if they are going to be neglected now after all the good work they have done.

Mr. HOGAN

I think it is unfair to put me specific questions such as have been put me from various parts of the House on the Estimates. I am not in a position to answer them. There is the usual machinery of question and answer, and no one can complain that it has not been availed of in connection with the Land Commission work. There probably have been more questions asked by Deputies in connection with the administration of the Land Act than on any other matter, with the possible exception of unemployment insurance. It is very easy for Deputies to quote one side of the case which I do not know anything about. I assure Deputies that I do not carry the facts of every case in my mind. I admit that I forget particulars of cases even a short time after I answer questions in connection with them. That is in the nature of the case, because I get five or six questions every day. I cannot be expected to know of cases that have never been asked of me before and that are sprung on me by way of speeches on the Estimates. If Deputies will just go back and have a look at the questions that have been asked for the last year in connection with the administration of the Land Commission—if they look at questions in which a very fine case has been made out against the Land Commission, and look at the answers and the supplementary answers—I think they will find that each case has been fairly met. It is easy to ask a question and to ask supplementary questions. If the reply is not full it is easy to put down another question and probe any case to the bottom.

I am willing to stand the test of an examination of the files of the questions that have been asked in the Dáil in connection with the Land Commission administration, but I cannot answer specific points put to me now in this debate. It is unfair to me and unfair to the Land Commission to put up these points in that way. Deputy Hall got up and mentioned the case of some old-age pensioner—some person, I think he said, of 70 years of age—who got a holding of land. I never heard of the gentleman before. I have in my mind similar questions that have been asked of me in the House, and I remember distinctly on examination some new facts emerged which elicited no comments from the particular Deputies who put down the questions. I cannot promise to deal with the specific points made here, with the exception of one raised by Deputy Murphy. He asked me a question in connection with this estate. I replied, and some supplementary questions were asked, and he announced as an alternative to raising the case on the adjournment that he would raise it on the Estimates. That is quite fair. I have had warning of that case, but that is the only specific case that I could be asked to answer.

It is quite evident from the debate that Deputies are beginning to realise that the administration of land purchase is no soft job. One side of the Dáil wants quicker division. I could hardly say one Party, because there seem to be differences in all parties in connection with the question. One Deputy wants quicker division; other Deputies want the Land Commission to slow up; other Deputies want prices to be a lot less; others want to see that anything like confiscation does not take place, and so on. Other Deputies keep repeating the request that we should deal with the congests, the landless men and the evicted tenants, regardless of the fact that there is not nearly enough land for one of these classes. We have to debate the Land Purchase Act in a cooler atmosphere.

Deputies will simply have to realise that there is not land there to deal with the whole of any one class that they are fond of mentioning, and that what the Land Commission finds it necessary to do is to make a selection from each class, giving the congests above all others the preference, but at the same time making a selection from each class. There are cases in which you have to deal with landless men, there are cases in which it is right to deal with evicted tenants, and these cases should be dealt with, but the policy should be the policy I outlined here before, that we should deal with the maximum number of congests and the minimum number of any others. Anyway, in general, it will have to be realised that of every ten deserving applicants for land only one can get it, and when Deputies get complaints in connection with the division of land from their constituents they ought to remember that, and they ought to remember the frame of mind of the nine deserving applicants who are left out, and the ninety-nine undeserving applicants who are left out. They ought to remember all that, and realise that the stories which they have heard are naturally highly coloured, and that the more a person under a grievance is suffering from what he regards as a deep sense of wrong, the more he is likely to colour the facts, and is likely, at least to some extent, to hide particular aspects of the case which would weaken his own case.

There are one or two points that I can deal with together. There is this question raised by Deputy Davin, Deputy Nolan and other Deputies as to price and with it the question of the alleged delay in vesting holdings. Deputy Davin asked me how many cases came before the Judicial Commissioner and in how many cases had there been an increase in the price. There are 349 estates priced, that is, estates acquired both compulsorily and voluntarily, and they cost an aggregate price of £1,781,000. Out of these, 69 estates came before the Judicial Commissioner to price. The price put on these 69 estates was £409,710, and the price as they emerged from the last process, before the Judicial Commissioner, was £436,576. Therefore the total increases as the result of being brought before the Judicial Commissioner have been £26,000.

Mr. DAVIN

Is that for the 66,000 acres already divided?

Mr. HOGAN

I am dealing with lands both divided and priced. That is the more satisfactory way. That includes increases, some decreases, I think, and some affirmations. I think that the Deputy will see that the amount is small—£26,000—on a transaction covering £436,000.

Mr. DAVIN

Covering what acreage?

Mr. HOGAN

I have not got the acreage, but I will give the Deputy figures which will give him a fair idea of what the acreage would be, because I am coming to another point now. That is the question of the price of land. Deputy Nolan has put the dilemma in a nutshell. He wants me to see that a price is given that, from the point of view of the annuitants, will not be too much, and he wants also to see that we should give a fair price. That is very wise, and I suppose that if Deputy Nolan were the Minister for Agriculture, and if I were in his position, I would be also wise, and I should warn him that he should not be a Bolshevik and that at the same time he should remember the real interests of the annuitants. It is easy to start out with good intentions in that matter, but it is very hard to square these intentions with the specific facts in each case.

Mr. NOLAN

A Chinn Comhairle, you have often said that Ministers were delighted with interruptions. Might I have the pleasure of interrupting the Minister now by explaining what I meant? I meant that they should divide lands in their hands and not take over any other lands or negotiate about any estate until what they have in their hands is divided.

Mr. HOGAN

I am trying not to be provocative, as the Deputy will realise. I am on the question of the price of lands that we have acquired. I am pointing out that it is very difficult when you come down to hard facts in each case, to be fair to the owner, to whom he wants me to be fair, and to be fair to the tenant purchaser, who has got to pay the annuity afterwards. Cases were quoted here in which it was alleged the annuities were more than the grazing rents, and Deputy Nolan, when quoting an example of average prices, referred to £40 an acre. That is again an example of what I complain of. I have never been asked here a question as to the price of an estate in which, as a matter of fact, the answer elicited that the price was £40 an acre. I have not in my mind any answer that I ever gave which showed that the price was £40 an acre.

Mr. NOLAN

I will give the Minister particulars of a case.

Mr. HOGAN

I am not asking the Deputy for particulars of the case now. He can put down a question any time, and I will answer it. I am saying that in any of the answers which I have given up to the present in connection with the prices of estates, I never remember an answer which showed that the price was £40.

Mr. NOLAN

That is for an Irish acre.

Mr. HOGAN

Even for an Irish acre.

Mr. NOLAN

I can give the particulars.

Mr. HOGAN

Yet the discussion went on here on the basis that that was a normal price. I will give you the normal prices. I am sorry it is necessary to give these figures, but in order to show the difficulties of the case I must give them. The average price for Ulster under the Land Act of 1903 was £7.3 per acre; under the Land Act of 1909 it was £15.8 per acre, and under the Land Act of 1923—so far as we have purchased land, and there are hundreds of thousands of acres purchased—it was £10.3 per statute acre. I do not want Deputies now to read too much into these averages. The price per acre is misleading. There might be a big estate with a very large proportion of bad land, and whereas the price of each acre might be low, nevertheless the price of the good land and the arable land might be dear, because a big proportion of the land might be worthless. If we have to follow all these prices we should take some lines which would make it possible to compare the figures for 1909 and 1923. Deputies may take it for granted that the considerations which I have mentioned, namely, the proportion of good land to the bad land, will just as much vitiate the figures for 1909 as for 1923. You can take it that there would not be more bad land on the 1923 estates than on the 1909 estates, and in that way we can see how they compare. For Leinster the average price per acre under the 1909 Act was £19.9, practically £20.

Mr. NOLAN

That is statute acres?

Mr. HOGAN

Yes. It is easy for the Deputy to add half and he will get an Irish acre. Under the 1923 Act the average price per acre in Leinster was £16.3. That is, I believe, about £25 an Irish acre. The average price for Connaught under the 1909 Act would be £10.2 per statute acre. Under the 1923 Act it would be £8.3. I have it here for the different counties. For Munster, the average price would be £15 per acre under the 1909 Act and £9.7 under the 1923 Act. These figures are a bit misleading because there might be an estate bought, say, for £4 per acre under the 1923 Act and it would be much dearer than an estate bought under the 1909 Act for £15 or £20 per acre, because of bad land, and vice versa. There might be an estate bought, say, for £10 an acre under the 1909 Act and it would be much dearer than an estate bought at £20 per acre under the 1923 Act. Deputies should not read too much into these figures. Everything depends on the quality of the land and the amount of bad land as compared with good land on each estate. Say that 10,000 acres of land could be bought for £2 an acre, of which 500 acres might be good land, that would work out at £15 an acre. You can take the same figures into consideration for the 1909 Act as for the 1923 Act. So far as they are misleading under the 1923 Act they are also misleading under the 1909 Act. Hence you can compare them. On looking down my list I think the highest price I can see, taking the average for each county, is for land in Leinster £27 a statute acre.

Mr. NOLAN

Would that be tenanted or untenanted land?

Mr. HOGAN

It might include tenanted land that is bought.

Mr. NOLAN

Would it include the landlord's and the tenant's interest?

Mr. HOGAN

Yes. There is no use going into small details in this matter. I am giving the average price of untenanted lands bought under the 1923 Act for purposes of division. I think that is plain to every Deputy. I do not know why it is not plain to Deputy Nolan. Untenanted land means the whole fee-simple, because there is no tenant on it. The highest price that I can see is £27 an acre, in Dublin; then £20, and next £17. This list would be correct up to a month ago, and the highest price paid was £27 an acre. These are the facts. They look very prosaic when compared with the alleged facts flung about the Dáil a few minutes ago. Is that land bought too dear? If it were the settled policy of the Land Commission to buy land at a smaller price, what would some Deputies who are now so keen on buying land cheap say? You must remember that we would be buying not only the fee-simple but in some cases resuming the lands of tenant purchasers and in some cases resuming the lands of the tenant. Is it the policy of Deputies to compel the Land Commission to buy land cheaper than that? There may be dear land amongst that. I am sure there is. No machinery is perfect. These are average prices.

I should get a lead from the Dáil, and especially from the Conservatives, on the question: Should it be the policy of the Land Commission to acquire land much more cheaply than that? I do not think it should. Look what it means. It is £25 an Irish acre for Leinster. To start with, that means an annuity of 26/-. That annuity would be only 16/- under the 1903 Act. Am I responsible for the rate of interest? I do not think I am responsible for the fact that the rate of interest is now 4¾% as against 3¼% under the 1903 Act. The Land Commission is expected to do a lot of things, but it cannot be expected to wipe out at one stroke of the pen all the effects of the European War. The fact is that we could not get the money at 4¾ per cent. but for the fact that we have forced the owners to take bonds. It is not the market rate. There is no use in getting eloquent on this subject; we must face the facts. The facts are that the Land Commission can hardly he expected to buy land much cheaper and that the Land Commission is not responsible for the fact that the rate of interest is now 4¾% as against 3¼% under the 1903 Act.

I pointed out that the annuity on land bought for £25 an acre—good land —would be 26/-. Formerly it would have been 16/-. Let us suppose there are twenty acres of that land with an annuity of 26/- bought at £25 an acre and, in addition, that we lend the tenant purchaser three hundred pounds or four hundred pounds to build a house. I have been pressed here to make those loans. It has been pointed out that there is no use in throwing a man land and telling him that he will have to do what he can with it. I am told that he must be given a house, and that he must have the means of fencing. We can only afford to give a small proportion of the money we have on the Estimate as grants. We must give some of it on loan and the loan is repayable in sixty years and bears interest at four and three-quarter per cent.

If we give that man £300 by way of loan, we add about eleven or twelve shillings to his annuity. That will be about thirty-six or thirty-seven shillings that he will have to pay. If that man comes from Limerick, he will rush to Deputy Nolan and say: "This is a nice performance. This land was bought by the Land Commission at so much and here am I paying forty shillings per acre annuity." That is what was happening in the case of every Deputy. If you make inquiries as to how much of that payment represents actual purchase annuity and how much of it represents repayment of the loans that we are giving, you will find that the real grievance, in a great many cases, is in respect of the money lent for building houses—money which is lent at an extraordinarily low rate and on extraordinarily accommodating terms as regards sinking fund. Take the case that Deputy Murphy mentioned. That farm of seventy or eighty acres. I think, is a purchased farm.

Mr. T. MURPHY

No.

Mr. HOGAN

Well, let us suppose a case in which seventy or eighty acres of land were previously purchased, that there is a local agitation for taking that land up and that the Land Commission propose to take it up. They buy it at £20 per acre. You start then with an annuity of nineteen shillings. If the Land Commission had to redeem the annuity on that land it would take £1,000. That would bring the annuity up to thirty-eight shillings. That shows how land bought at £20 per acre could start with an annuity of nineteen shillings. If the land were previously purchased and there was a charge or annuity on it, as is often the case, or if it was tenanted land, and the Land Commission had to buy the tenant's interest as well as the landlord's interest, that might increase the annuity up to forty shillings. These are factors over which I have no control. I cannot solve these difficulties. Deputies should realise that they are there and that they make land purchase extraordinarily difficult.

That is the reason why we must have such a big sum for improvements under the Improvements sub-head. We realise that we cannot make big loans and that we must be prepared to make bigger grants than we used to make in the past. We would like that loans would form a larger proportion of that money, but we find that we cannot arrange that. If we lend instead of making a grant for a house, we find that the charge on the land is too heavy. Experience tells us that we must be prepared to lose considerable sums of money in order to make land purchase an economic proposition, in view of the high rates of interest.

I have been asked to divide the land that is in hands and not do any more. Anybody who knows the difficulties of land purchase will see that that is impossible. I am afraid some Deputies are thinking of conditions in their own district. If you go down to Mayo you will not be in a position to buy a big estate, because there are no big estates to be bought. You will get the land in blocks of one hundred or two hundred acres, and you will find fifty or sixty congests about. To deal with them would require three times as much land as you have got. You have, say, a block of 350 acres. That will deal with only ten congests. There may be another estate adjoining of 1,000 acres. If you could get that, you could deal with them all at the same time. If you cannot get that, the difficulties of choosing ten out of fifty congests are overwhelming. You will also find that one of the congests has a fairly big holding, and that if you take him out and purchase his holding you can deal with two of his neighbours and then deal with himself on the estate you have just bought.

The long and short of it is that when you buy land in a congested district you find that in order to make the whole proposition economic, in order to have a state of affairs whereby people will not have to cart, say manure long distances from their houses to the holdings for tillage purposes, you have to purchase another block of land close by in order to put the scheme through. As a matter of practice, that is so. That is the reason that the Land Commission, when they have got a little piece of land, have to wait on until they get more. That is the reason they have been unable to vest certain lands which they have had in hands for a long time. The Land Commission has, in fact—I am speaking now of the operations of the 1903 and 1909 Acts—vested 20,000 holdings comprising 6,634 acres. There is almost as much more in hands. In 1923 land purchase had to be stopped for a great many reasons.

When the Land Commission in 1923 was amalgamated with the Congested Districts Board, there were huge areas of land, purchased under the 1903 and 1909 Acts, unvested. That had to be done. A lot has been done. The more of that is vested the more difficult it is to vest the rest. You are left with the tail-end of an estate, and it is difficult to divide that. If we are to divide land judiciously, we must get time. Schemes of division cannot be rushed. If they are, the wrong men will get the land. If the Land Commission are expected to divide land quickly, they really cannot be expected to divide it fairly; they must, in that case, have regard not so much to the equities of the case as to a scheme that will pass muster for the moment. It is very easy to put through a scheme if you give the land to the wrong men. They are very often the strongest people in the neighbourhood. But if you are to be in a position to stand over the scheme absolutely when finished, you must take time.

As regards Mayo, there were about two thousand acres divided under the 1923 Act and 60,000 or 70,000 acres divided under previous Acts. I was asked how many migrants there have been out of Mayo. There have been thousands and thousands. A very big proportion of the lands of the midlands, which have been bought and on which big farmers have been placed, are really lands that were divided, if I may put it that way, in Mayo. These big farmers, to a large extent, came from Mayo. Land purchase in places like Mayo is not one process but two processes. You have first to take up the land of the farmers—they are really big farmers and not landlords—there. Then you have to acquire land for them elsewhere. Having done that, you come back and divide their land. A very big area has been acquired all over the country and a large number of farmers have been migrated there from places like Mayo, in order to deal with the congestion existing there.

Deputy Morrissey asked me two questions. He asked if capital was essential for a tenant purchaser. It is not. He asked if capital was essential for a landless man. It is not. Capital is always useful, but it is not by any means essential. The Land Commission, in considering this question, regard the character of the man as well as the capital he has. They even pay more attention to the man's character. Capital is not essential for a tenant purchaser. A knowledge of farming and a reputation for industry is the first essential.

Mr. DAVIN

Is the Minister aware that the question is being put to applicants for land generally—it is being put, at all events, in my part of the country—by inspectors?

Mr. HOGAN

It is a question which, if I were an inspector, I would certainly ask. Capital is always useful, but I should say that in fifty per cent. of the cases the applicants have no capital.

Mr. MORRISSEY

Is the Minister aware that some inspectors have gone further and said that they will not give land to landless men unless they have capital, no matter what knowledge they have of agriculture?

Mr. HOGAN

The man who said that said what is incorrect. Certainly it is not the policy of the Land Commission. I can assure the Deputy, and I am in a position to see to it, that that will not be the policy of the Land Commission. Everyone knows that a good farmer's son, even a small farmer's son, or a labourer used to farm work, is often a far better and a more desirable tenant purchaser than another man with capital. On the other hand, capital is distinctly useful to these men.

Mr. DAVIN

Surely the Minister does not support a policy which would enable an individual to get land, and having got it, finds himself unable to stock it, or with machinery to work it. The Minister does not approve of that kind of land division.

Mr. HOGAN

I do not understand the Deputy's point. I think I have said all that I want to say on that question, and have made my position clear. A tenant in a labourer's cottage is not disqualified thereby from benefiting by the division of land. That was expressly safeguarded in the 1923 Act. We select tenants of labourers' cottages wherever it is desirable, and wherever the circumstances warrant it.

Mr. T. MURPHY

That is not the opinion of the inspectors.

Mr. HOGAN

I am afraid the Deputy is arguing from the particular to the general. I do not say that every tenant of a labourer's cottage should get land; far from it. There is no class, all of whom are entitled to land. I think I pointed out that often. A tenant of a labourer's cottage belongs to a class that can get land. In fact and in practice they have got land.

Mr. DAVIN

Where they have acreage in addition to the holding attached to the labourer's cottage?

Mr. HOGAN

No; as landless men. With regard to the case mentioned by Deputy Murphy, I am afraid I cannot argue on it, because it has gone to the Judicial Commissioner and he has decided. I can only say here is a case in which there are 70 or 80 acres of land near a town. It is a palpably small farm. There was an application that it should be acquired and divided. That was heard by the Commissioners. Proceedings were discontinued. The Commissioners, in deference to representations made locally, re-opened the case. The case came before the Commissioners. They decided to acquire and then it went before the Judicial Commissioner. He, in his judicial capacity, decided that the land should not be acquired, and I think it is not open to us to argue the question any further. I did not know until this minute that it had gone as far as the Judicial Commissioner.

Mr. MURPHY

I suggest to the Minister the manifest unfairness of allowing this in the case of a man who had already disposed of two farms.

Mr. HOGAN

Both sides went before the Judicial Commissioner.

Mr. MURPHY

The owner could not stand over the case. He was away in America. This gentleman came along and assisted him by pretending to take it over.

Mr. HOGAN

The case was listed for the 21st March. After hearing the arguments, and presumably the points the Deputy mentioned, the Judicial Commissioner came to his decision. Consequently I am afraid we cannot argue the matter any further.

Mr. MURPHY

That will not preclude the local people from taking action in the matter, and I will advise them to take action.

Mr. NOLAN

If the Minister is going to pay high prices for land he will have to get other guarantees for the annuities besides the agricultural grant considering that the prices are so high in Limerick and the other counties of Ireland.

Mr. DAVIN

I want to say this, that I hope the Land Commission inspectors will carefully read the Minister's reply with regard to his view of the suitability of certain types of people and the qualifications they require, and that they will frame their future schemes for division in accordance with what appears to be his interpretation of the Land Act. I was glad to get the figures for the sixty-nine estates, because a feeling has gone abroad that prices were being unduly increased by the Judicial Commissioners on appeal, which did not appear to be justified by the figures which the Minister has given to-day. In order to arrive at an accurate view of the cases which went before the Judicial Commissioner the Minister should give us the acreage for which this £20,000 increase has been paid. I want to warn the Minister not to adopt the views of Deputy Gorey and Deputy Nolan. Both Deputy Gorey and Deputy Nolan and Deputies of every Party supported the Minister in the Land Act of 1923.

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE

I think it will be taken for granted that the general discussion is now closed. The Ceann Comhairle definitely stated that the Minister's speech concluded the discussion on the main question.

Mr. DAVIN

Has not a Deputy the right to speak three times in Committee?

Mr. DOLAN

Might I suggest, as a matter of arrangement now, that when you put the general question you might also put the Vote? I have put it to Deputy Cooper that we have taken considerably more time than that drawn up in our time-table in discussing the Estimates, and perhaps he will waive discussion of his amendment.

Mr. HEFFERNAN

I want to ask the Minister has he any statement to make as to the completion of the vesting of tenanted land under the 1923 Act?

Major COOPER

In reply to the Parliamentary Secretary's appeal I realised that the hopes held out by Deputy Heffernan yesterday, that time would be saved, would not be fulfilled. My amendment was put down largely for the purpose of getting information. I have gathered some of that information from the Minister's speech. If there is a general agreement that the Vote should be put now I am content to waive my amendment.

Mr. DAVIN

I want a ruling. I understood it was the right of a Deputy to speak three times.

Mr. HOGAN

Unless by general agreement.

Mr. DAVIN

I want to know if there is general agreement on the point that a Deputy can speak only once on a general Vote.

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE

Under the Rules of Committee a Deputy can speak three times, each speech to be within ten minutes. On the general discussion of a Vote Deputies make speeches sometimes as long as half an hour. For that reason they are not allowed to make three speeches.

Mr. HOGAN

I will give the Deputy the figures.

Mr. HEFFERNAN

Perhaps the Minister would make a statement, as I think the information ought to be given to the country. I have not bothered the Minister, perhaps, as much as other Deputies here, and I think that this is an important phase of land purchase which has not been dealt with by the Minister. So far as my Party are concerned, we are willing to consider the suggestion of Deputy Dolan, but we think that an explanation should be given in regard to the time taken up by this discussion. That time was largely taken by the Minister in making his statement.

Mr. HOGAN

Not on the Land Commission Vote.

Mr. HEFFERNAN

No, on the other Vote. I think we got a lot of useful information from the Minister.

Mr. HOGAN

The figures are as follows—28,000 acres of tenanted land have been vested; 296,000 acres have been gazetted, and in connection with 1,966,000 acres purchase schedules have been lodged. That gives a total of, roughly, 2,321,000 acres. There would in all be about 3,000,000 acres of untenanted land. There has not been much progress in regard to tenanted land, largely for the reason mentioned by Deputy Nolan, namely, arrears. The Land Bill will, I hope, be introduced next week so that that will deal with that difficulty once and for all.

Vote put and agreed to.