Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 18 Apr 1928

Vol. 23 No. 1

IN COMMITTEE ON FINANCE. - VOTE No. 54 (LAND COMMISSION).

The PRESIDENT

I move:—

Go ndeontar suim ná raghaidh thar £474,741 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, 1929, 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; Uimh. 27 agus Uimh. 42 de 1923, Uimh. 25 de 1925, 11 de 1926 agus Uimh. 19 de 1927).

That a sum not exceeding £474,741 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, 1929, 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, s. 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; Nos. 27 and 42 of 1923, 25 of 1925, 11 of 1926 and 19 of 1927).

PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to MINISTER for FISHERIES (Mr. Roddy)

Deputies will observe that the Estimate for the Land Commission for the year 1928-1929 shows a net increase of £49,499 as compared with the Estimate for 1927-1928. The items of increase are under sub-heads H, I, K, amounting to £81,200 in all. The sub-heads showing decreases are A, B, F, and J, amounting to £22,599. I propose to go through the sub-heads separately and to explain the objects and meanings of each, and to indicate the reasons for increases or decreases, as the case may be. Sub-head A is for salaries, wages and allowances, and this sub-head amounts to £243,901, showing a decrease of £10,599 as compared with last year. The reduction in the amount of the salaries, wages and allowances is due principally to the fall in the cost-of-living bonus, together with a very slight reduction in the staff. The salaries are shown in the Estimate, and I do not think it is necessary, at this stage, to discuss them, as Deputies can see these figures for themselves. The basic salary, of course, is given in each case. The total amount of the bonus is given at the end of the Estimates. Sub-head B—Travelling Expenses—shows a decrease of £1,000 as compared with last year. The reduction is mainly due to a modification in the cost of travelling and the rates of subsistence allowance. These travelling expenses are incurred chiefly by inspectors and members of the Survey staff. There are about 159 members of the Land Commission staff travelling the country, either on inspectorial or survey duties. The scales of travelling and subsistence allowances are fixed by the Minister for Finance, and these are the scales paid to the officials of the Land Commission staff who travel throughout the country. Sub-head C is for incidental expenses. That is a very small item and really refers to the inspectors, chain-men, advertisements, uniforms, and so on. Sub-head D is for the Office of Public Trustee, and the sum of £773 is for additional expenses for the Office of the Public Trustee. The present Public Trustee was appointed in pursuance of Section 52 of the Land Act of 1923, and, in addition to performing the duties of Public Trustee, he is acting as Assistant Examiner of Title as well. He is only entitled to act as trustee where all or part of the trust fund emanates from sales of land under the Land Purchase Acts. There are, approximately, three hundred trust accounts, and there are a very large number of investments standing in the name of the Public Trustee. The dividends from these investments are received, disbursed and distributed by the Public Trustee. The capital value of the investments under his control amounted approximately to £1,100,000. In addition to acting as Public Trustee and Examiner of Title, he is also responsible for the administration of the Land Act of 1927 so far as it relates to Land Bank and Committee cases. Under Sub-head E—Solicitors' Department, Salaries and Allowances—there is a decrease of £537. The staff is given in the Estimate.

The reduction there is also mainly due to the fall in the cost of living bonus. Sub-head F—Solicitors' Department, incidental expenses:—The Estimate in this case is for £5,000 showing a reduction of £1,000 as compared with last year. This includes the costs incurred by the Solicitor to the Land Commission in proceedings taken by him in the Circuit and District Courts in Dublin for the recovery of moneys through defaulting annuitants in respect of land situated in Dublin as well as against defaulters who reside in the County Dublin in respect of lands elsewhere in the Saorstát. The Land Commission solicitor performs the functions ordinarily performed by the State solicitors elsewhere. He is paid a salary, and the expenses given in the Courts and the other receipts are paid into the Land Commission accounts and are taken as Appropriations-in-Aid. The Appropriations-in-Aid under this head amount to £3,000, so that reduces the actual expenses under sub-head "F" to £2,000.

Sub-head G is for contributions towards the charge for excess stock. This sub-head provides for a contribution made by the Saorstát Government under the Ultimate Financial Settlement for charges for excess stock under the Acts of 1903 and 1909. This contribution has been fixed under the Ultimate Financial Settlement and it amounts to £134,500. Sub-head II is for payment under Section 11 (7) of the Land Act of 1923 and shows an increase of £2,000. This sub-head provides for the payment of interest and sinking fund on land bonds issued in respect of contributions by the State to the standard price in the case of sales under the Land Acts of 1923 and 1927. The reason for the increase this year is that under the Land Act of 1927 which gave the Land Commission the power to add compounded arrears of rent to the purchase money, vesting arrangements are proceeding much more quickly now and consequently the issue of land bonds has been greatly accelerated. That explains the increase in this item this year. Sub-head I, Improvement of Estates, shows an increase of £49,200. That increase is inevitable when Deputies remember that we are acquiring and distributing lands now much more rapidly than we were able to do it hitherto. Last year for instance we distributed 60,000 acres of land acquired under the 1923 Land Act alone. That is quite apart from the land acquired by the Congested Districts Board and the Estates Commissioners. We divided 60,000 acres last year, whereas in the previous year we divided only 35,000 acres. That shows clearly and proves clearly that it is necessary to spend considerably more money on improvement works when the division of the land is proceeding more rapidly than when the division proceeds at a moderate pace. We hope to accelerate the pace at which land is to be distributed and consequently to spend more money on improvement works this year. This money is utilised for the division of untenanted land, and new holdings, for enlarging existing holdings and equipping them with fences, drains, roads and other necessary improvements such as building out-offices. Out of this item there are also paid certain instalments to the Board of Works by way of repayment of loans advanced to the Congested Districts Board. This item also has to bear the cost of Health and Unemployment Insurance of employees engaged in improvement work.

There is no amount set down under this particular head this year for the general purposes schemes in congested districts, but as the item appears perhaps it would be well to explain briefly why it was included there last year. It was originally introduced in the Land Commission Vote to enable the Land Commission to meet the commitments of the late Congested Districts Board in respect of contributions which it offered towards schemes of public utility undertaken by local authorities and other bodies throughout the country. The expenditure in connection with these schemes has now been terminated, the work either having been completed or not having been proceeded with. Last year there was still a small expenditure incurred for the upkeep of certain nurses' cottages erected or purchased by the Board for the accommodation of Lady Dudley nurses. There are a number of the cottages throughout the Free State, and it was customary for the Congested Districts Board to make a slight contribution each year for their upkeep. For the future this money will be paid out of the Improvement Vote, and consequently this sub-head will disappear from the Estimates.

Sub-head J deals with advances to meet deficiency of income from untenanted land purchased under the Land Act, 1923. Deputies will remember that a few weeks ago we had a very lengthy discussion in the Dáil on the Supplementary Estimate introduced for the purpose of making good the deficiency in income derived from untenanted land. I explained very clearly or that occasion the object of the Vote, and I do not think it is necessary to repeat it now. We estimate that next year there will be a deficiency of £25,000. The Supplementary Estimate was for a deficiency of £35,000, but that was spread over a period of a few years.

Sub-head K refers to payments under Sections 42 and 46, Land Act, 1927. The money under this sub-head is required for the purpose of Committee cases. It is to pay the interest on the capital advances arising out of the re-sale of land under these two sections. In the Committee cases the payments will probably amount to £5,700. In the case of the Land Bank estates the arrears alone amount to £15,000, and the annual charge will be about £7,600. The item of £30,000 includes £15,000 for arrears. That amount will disappear out of the Estimate for next year, but there will be a sum of at least £15,000 included in the Estimate year after year as a perpetual charge for making good the deficiency in acquiring land either got by the Land Bank or otherwise during the years 1920, 1921 and 1922.

Sub-head L deals with telegrams and telephones. There is no change in last year's estimate. The amount remains the same, and I think it is normal considering the enormous amount of work the Land Commission have to do, and the huge number of calls that have to be answered every day.

Sub-head M. refers to deficiencies on realisation by Government Departments of land bonds. The amount is £2,500, exactly the same amount as is included in last year's Estimate. This sub-head is introduced for the purpose of making good deficiencies caused by the redemption of Government charges, by the transfer of land bonds at their face value. In the case of the redemption of the Board of Works loans, the bonds received by the Board of Works have only their market value. The present sub-head provides for the difference between the face value and the amount actually realised by the bonds. That amounts to £2,500. The loss on unoccupied holdings comes to £100. That is dealt with in Sub-head N. This sub-head is for the purpose of making good any loss which may arise where, owing to default in the payment of land annuities, the Land Commission have to take over a holding and incur expenses which are not realised on the eventual sale of the holding.

In Sub-head O—Appropriations-in-Aid—the total amounts to £98,940. I think the items in the sub-head more or less explain themselves and I do not know that it is necessary at this stage to enter into any detailed explanation of the items.

In discussing the Supplementary Estimates some few weeks ago I dealt very fully with the problems of land distribution. I gave statistics on that occasion showing the rate at which we were acquiring and distributing land to-day and showing at the same time the nature of the problem that confronted us. I do not propose to repeat those figures on this occasion, but I have prepared a summarised statement showing the work the Land Commission has actually accomplished under the Land Purchase Acts since the transfer of the Land Commission to the Free State Government on the 1st April, 1923. At that particular period there were a number of pending sales relating to estates acquired under the 1903 and 1909 Land Acts. By pending sales I mean sales in connection with which purchase agreements actually had been signed but the vesting arrangements remained incomplete subsequent to the transfer of the Land Commission to the Free State Government. As regards the completion of pending proceedings in the direct sales between landlord and tenant under the 1903 and 1909 Land Acts, purchase moneys amounting to over £3,500,000 have been advanced for the purchase of 431,000 acres, comprised in 14,250 holdings vested in purchasing tenants. In addition, purchase moneys amounting to £230,000 have been advanced for the purchase of 44 estates comprising 46,000 acres which have been vested in the Land Commission to be re-sold eventually to the tenants. That is so far as pending proceedings were concerned and those are all proceedings relating to the 1903 and 1909 Land Acts.

As regards the re-sale of estates previously purchased by the Estates Commissioners or the C.D.B., an area of 508,000 acres has been vested in 15,000 purchasers on re-sale for a total re-sale price of over £3,000,000. The area of untenanted land on estates which have been divided since the Land Commission was transferred to the Free State Government is 125,000 acres. That briefly represents the activities of the Land Commission since its transfer in connection with proceedings under the Land Acts of 1903 and 1909. With regard to the Land Act of 1923, including National Land Bank, Committee lands and resumed holdings, 220,000 acres of untenanted land have been acquired for a price of £2,605,000. Of this area 140,000 acres have been divided and the allottees placed in possession. The division of the remaining 80,000 acres is being proceeded with as rapidly as possible. In addition 180,000 acres of untenanted lands are in process of purchase by the Land Commission under the 1923 Land Act and inquiries are being made as to the suitability for purchase of a further area of some 700,000 acres under that Act.

Of the tenanted land coming under the Land Act of 1923 135,000 acres have been vested in the Land Commission in respect of, approximately, 3,000 holdings, representing a total purchase price of £1,400,000. Further, an area of 480,000 acres in respect of, approximately, 13,500 holdings representing a purchase price of £4,070,000 has been provisionally gazetted. That in a nutshell represents the activities of the Land Commission since the 1st April, 1923, under the Land Acts of 1903, 1909 and 1923. Under the recent Land Act of 1927 (Section 2) the Land Commission have now been given power to add to the purchase money of a holding any uncollectable amount of arrears of rent. This enables the Land Commission to fix the appointed day without waiting for payment in cash of the unpaid balance of compounded arrears. It has greatly expedited the work of vesting the tenanted land. In the last six months, as an indication of the progress that has been made, partly in consequence of the passing of this Act and partly in consequence of certain arrangements that have been made in the Land Commission with the object of speeding up the work of vesting tenanted land, 1,880 holdings have been vested comprising 18,000 acres as against 191 holdings representing 80,000 acres in the previous six months. That, I think, is a fairly good illustration of the extent to which we have speeded up the work of vesting tenanted land.

The Act of 1927 removed many anomalies and difficulties contained in the Act of 1923 but the operations of that Act are certainly going to throw a considerable amount of work on the Land Commission. Already under Section 11, which is the section relating to fee farm grants, a huge number of applications have been received from owners of land in different parts of the country. These applications will have to be considered eventually by the Commissioners and decided upon in a judicial way. In addition to that, some thousands of applications have been received under Section 16 which is the section relating to sub-tenancies, as sub-tenants can now be declared in the same way as tenants under the Act of 1923. As I say a huge number of applications have been received and these tenants, as tenants coming under Section 11, will have to be dealt with by the Commissioners in the usual judicial way. We are likely to experience in the coming year a considerable increase of work consequent on the operations of that Act. I think I have dealt with all the points that are likely to arise in a discussion on the Estimates and I do not propose to say anything more at this stage. As I have said, the Land Commission administration was discussed very fully a few weeks ago. There was scarcely a phase of Land Commission activities left untouched by Deputies and I do not know that any Deputy can say anything very new on the subject on this occasion—I certainly cannot—and I must wait until I hear the discussion which is likely to follow on the introduction of this Estimate.

Dr. RYAN

I will do my best to throw some light on the Land Commission. I do not know if I can. We might be more forcible, perhaps, if we went back over the debates in former years and say the same things as have been said about it previously. Perhaps the same things will be said about it again next year. We are glad to see that the Land Commission has reduced its salary bill, but it is very hard for any Deputy, who has not the leisure to go into the Land Commission and spend a few days there seeing what they are doing, to know what should be the staff of that Department. Any Deputy with whom I came in touch feels that we are not getting value for the Land Commission, that things are not being done with the speed and efficiency with which they should be done. We have come to the conclusion that the place is over-staffed and, perhaps, over-paid. I am not going to delay on the question of salaries, as our views on that are fairly well known. We consider that the highly-paid men in particular are a luxury for this country as long as it is as poor as it is.

If I get on, perhaps, to the work done by the Land Commission for the last few years we would be able to form our own conclusions as to whether it is over-staffed. The Parliamentary Secretary gave figures about the work done in the Land Commission during the last three or four years, but they were a little bit confusing. I got a letter from the Land Commission in answer to a question about the amount of land vested and unvested, the amount taken over under various Acts, and the amount of untenanted land divided and so on. Although that question was answered on 2nd April—and I daresay the figures which the Parliamentary Secretary gave to-day may be regarded as up to date—I cannot understand the discrepancy between some of the figures, even allowing for the work done by the Land Commission during the intervening fortnight. I think it safer, therefore, to rely on the written figures before me which were supplied by that Department on 2nd April. According to these figures, the amount of tenanted land which had been bought under the various Acts up to 1909 was about 10,000,000 acres. There have been about 1,000,000 acres added to that amount since 1st April, 1923. That was at the time when the Land Commission was taken over by the present Government. Under the 1923 Act we have only had 110,000 acres, according to my figures, vested. That is the particular item to which, I think, we should draw attention. We have been told by the Parliamentary Secretary that last year 60,000 acres were vested under the Act of 1923.

Mr. RODDY

I said "divided."

Dr. RYAN

I thought the Parliamentary Secretary said "vested." The amount of tenanted land under the Act of 1923 would be 110,000 acres for the last four years, according to the list of figures supplied to me, so far as I can understand them. There are still about 4,000,000 acres of tenanted land to be dealt with by the Land Commission sometime, but unless they increase their efficiency and get on with the work more quickly than they are doing we are not going to see the land of this country dealt with in our life time, nor will the next generation see it finished. As a matter of fact, at the rate at which we have been going during the last four years, so far as I can find out by a sum in simple division, it will take 120 years to get it finished. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will prove, by the way it has been speeded up, that by a system of geometrical progression that 120 years will be cut down considerably.

With regard to the untenanted land, under the 1923 Act they have allotted 135,000 acres according to my figures, and they have, as a matter of fact, about 978,000 acres in some sort of progress. On some of it they have fixed a price, negotiations are proceeding in respect of other portions of it, and another part is subject to inquiry. They have a million acres of untenanted land which they have at least found on the map, and they intend to divide it in the near future, or some time. But we have no idea whatever—although I tried to find out in the question I put to the Parliamentary Secretary, I have not been supplied with the information —of the amount of untenanted land which remains apart from that, and which will have to be dealt with at some time. We are altogether at sea as to how long it may take them to divide up the land that still remains to be divided—whether it is going to be 20, 40 or 50 years. At any rate it is going to last a number of years at the rate the Land Commission is proceeding at present. We have been assured by the Parliamentary Secretary, and I have been assured in the answer to the question I have already referred to, that on account of the provisions of the 1927 Act things will move much faster, because they will be able to add on the arrears to the purchase money, and will not have to wait to have the arrears cleared off. That may be. Perhaps things may be better. All we can do, I suppose, is to hope for better things from the Land Commission for another year or two. A year or two will make very little difference to the Land Commission.

There is a very serious complaint from one section of the population, the section of non-judicial holders. We may take it for granted that the judicial holders are paying what was regarded, at one time at any rate, as a fair rent but the non-judicial holders can claim that they are not paying a fair rent. The only possible way out for them is to have the vesting done in their cases as quickly as possible. I think the Land Commission should have pity on those people and try to take those cases first. They should have those cases adjudicated upon and have a fair rent fixed in order to give them a chance of making a living out of the land, a thing which it is very hard to do at present and which it is impossible to do when they are paying exorbitant rents. There is no doubt that there is a large staff in the Land Commission. It may be that they are getting on more quickly with the work now, but a considerable amount of the time of that staff is taken up with the collection of land annuities which are being sent out of this country. The Parliamentary Secretary in introducing this Vote should have given us some idea of the cost of the approximate proportion of time taken up by his staff in the collection of these land annuities under the Acts up to 1909 so that we would have an idea of what it is costing this country to collect land annuities which are going to the British Government and what his Department is costing this country in respect of operations under the 1923 Act—dividing untenanted land and purchasing and vesting tenanted land. Then we would be able to discuss this question in a proper way but in default of that information we can only come to the conclusion that at least a good deal of time must be taken up in collecting some millions of pounds a year and in some cases in sending many notices before the annuity is paid, uttering threats of various sorts to those people who do not pay their annuities and in bookkeeping and so on for the benefit of people outside this country. I do not know whether any Deputy in this House is quite satisfied that this country is able to afford a service of this sort.

ACTING-CHAIRMAN

The Deputy must be quite clear at this stage that the question of the transfer of annuities to the British Government cannot arise under this Estimate. That takes place in accordance with an Act of Parliament and we cannot discuss it. We can only discuss the administration.

Dr. RYAN

I do not want to disobey your ruling in any way, but I thought that perhaps I could draw attention to the serious expenditure—

ACTING-CHAIRMAN

You appeared to be about to discuss the whole question. You said: "Can any Deputy defend this system," or some words to that effect.

Mr. GOREY

I suggest that this is a matter that could be raised on the Vote for the Executive Council.

ACTING-CHAIRMAN

The Deputy cannot raise the question of an Act of Parliament. He can raise the whole question of the administration but not an Act passed by this House.

Mr. ALLEN

Under what Act is this money handed over?

ACTING-CHAIRMAN

I cannot give the Deputy the exact reference, but there is no dispute that it is carrying out an Act to hand these moneys over. Any discussion on that Act I rule definitely out of order.

Mr. G. BOLAND

I understood that Deputy Dr. Ryan was referring to the cost of collecting this money. I suggest that that is relevant.

ACTING-CHAIRMAN

No. Deputy Dr. Ryan was proceeding to say, "Can you justify this transfer of annuities?" On that I pulled him up.

Mr. CORRY

There is no Act.

Dr. RYAN

I take it that I will be quite in order in discussing the question of the expense of the collection of land annuities.

ACTING-CHAIRMAN

That is quite all right, but it is expenditure which cannot be amended without fresh legislation. The general theory on the Estimates is that everything relating to the Department can be discussed, but anything which requires fresh legislation cannot be taken up on an Estimate. The Estimates refer to the administration of existing Acts but the Act is a matter which cannot be discussed. The Deputy is perfectly in order in discussing whether the administration is carried out economically or otherwise, but he is not justified in discussing whether the Act on which it is based is an Act which should have been passed. The distinction is quite clear.

Dr. RYAN

I am under the impression that it is a section of the 1923 Land Act.

ACTING-CHAIRMAN

Should be repealed—that is what the Deputy wants to say.

Dr. RYAN

No. About the handing over of these land annuities, the Executive Council, or the Minister for Finance, I forget which, is authorised to hand over the land annuities to the British Government under a section of the 1923 Land Act. It is a very vague section, and as far as I know there is no compulsion whatsoever on anybody to collect the land annuities. It was for that reason that I asked why should anybody ask the people here to pay these land annuities? They are not compelled by any Act of Parliament or any agreement with the British Government, as far as we know.

ACTING-CHAIRMAN

The Deputy is asking a question which should be decided in a court of law. We are not to decide what is the legal meaning of an Act. It is not for me or any Deputy to give a legal expression of opinion on that point.

Dr. RYAN

I am not raising this point to try and get the better of the argument. I thought I might be allowed to go on with it on the plea that there was no compulsion to collect them. However, I leave it at that. Perhaps we may have another opportunity of raising this matter. I mentioned that the figures I got on the 2nd of April from the Parliamentary Secretary did not correspond in many respects with the figures which he read out to-day. His figures may be up to date. If the figures which he supplied me with on the 2nd of April and the figures which he read out to-day are both correct, I must say the Land Commission have done extraordinary work for the last fortnight. If they go on at that rate they will have all the land bought up within the next few years, because there is a very big difference in the figures. I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to give me some idea of how the discrepancies arose. I might also make the complaint that in the question I referred to I asked how much land was bought out under each of the Acts. The reply stated that so much was bought out from 1870 to 1909, but it did not give the information I wanted, and this is the reason: I have an idea—I may be wrong, and if so the Parliamentary Secretary will very likely tell me that I am—that most of the land bought out under the Acts passed by the British Parliament was from 1909 onwards—at any rate from 1903 onwards. So that if we take the rate at which the land was being bought out from 1903 to 1923, we would in all probability find that the Land Commission were working as hard anyway, perhaps harder, during those years than they have been working from 1923 to 1928. If I had been supplied with the information I asked for I would not have made that point, and perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary would not have had to shake his head at me, as he has.

Mr. RODDY

I think the Deputy got the information asked for under all the Acts from 1870 to 1923.

Dr. RYAN

I asked for the information under each Act, but I got it all in bulk.

Mr. RODDY

That is the information the Deputy got.

Dr. RYAN

But I got it in bulk. I would also like the Parliamentary Secretary to give us an assurance—and this is a matter that affects us very much in the country districts—that these people who are agitating to have their holdings vested, and whose holdings are non-judicial holdings, will get preference over the others. They claim that they are paying rack-rents. In the old times they had a Land Court to go to, but now they have none, and I think they should get the preference.

Mr. CORISH

One matter I should like to refer to is in connection with the reinstatement of evicted tenants. When a large portion of land is purchased by the Land Commission, and when they put people on it who they say are evicted tenants, in many cases they evict a person already in possession of a house on that particular estate. I do not think that is a proper policy. I do not see the use of putting in one evicted tenant at the expense of another, and I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary in future to try and avoid a policy of that kind. It has happened in two or three cases in my constituency. In one case the Minister was good enough, when I drew attention to the matter, to refrain from doing that. There is another case now on the same estate which I make special representations about. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to refrain from doing things of that kind. It is certainly not good policy to bring a person from one area to another, evict a person already on the estate and throw him out on the road in order to reinstate an evicted tenant.

Mr. GOREY

The two great reasons for the Land Commission going slow with regard to the vesting of tenanted holdings have now disappeared. The question of congests and of untenanted lands has to a great extent been dealt with. A good part of the work in connection with estates has been done, and the problem is almost dealt with. I will not refer to the other cause. It is one that can be anticipated by anybody who gives the matter any thought. To my mind, therefore, the road is now clear for dealing with the tenanted estates. If we are to expect, in view of the increased staff of the Land Commission, anything like the same output of work as we had under previous Acts, most of the estates should be dealt with within the next twelve months, and not within the next ten or twelve years. Under the 1909 Act, for the first time we had payments made in stock. The cause of the delay under previous Acts was the difficulty in finding money and the fact that stock had to be floated in the market. That disappeared altogether under the 1909 Act. I was able to force sales in my own county under the 1909 Act in connection with four estates, and within 12 months after the agreement being made the vesting orders were made. Under the 1923 Act payment is also made in stock, and the only question that arises is one of title, together with some small incidental difficulties.

If the Land Commission is not going to give full value for this money let it stand aside and let some other power be put in to do the work. I have great hopes that in twelve months the story will be different, and if it is not different there will be other voices raised in this House, to know the reason why. The two great causes have disappeared. One I will not refer to, and the other has been almost dealt with. One of the great troubles we had with regard to untenanted property was the local agitation to buy the land at any price. They forced the Government. The Government was in the position of having paid too much for the land in the case of most of those estates, but they had no choice. They were forced into it owing to local clamour to buy the property. They bought it and paid too much, and there is too much of an annuity charge on most of the holdings on such estates. It is a common thing to have 30/- or 35/-an Irish acre charged for land that under a judicial rent would only bear 12/- to 15/- an acre. These lands, as a matter of fact, if purchased under any of the previous Acts, would have had a judicial rent of anything from 15/- to £1 an acre, which would bring down the annuities to anything from 10/- to 12/6 an acre. Under this untenanted land distribution the same class of land is bearing a rental of from 30/- to 35/- an acre and, on top of that, buildings and fences have to be put up. I pity the Land Commission and I pity the tenants responding to this clamour for buying and dividing land at an improper time. If they were buying now instead of four years ago the prices would be different. There is no use going into that matter now, but it seems to me the State will have to bear a big share of the loss in connection with a lot of this property bought out.

Mr. CLERY

Wait for fifty years more when it will be cheaper?

Mr. MATTHEW O'REILLY

I agree with Deputy Gorey that too much money is being paid for land, and I am afraid that, as a nation, we have been rather unfortunate from that point of view, I suppose, since the Land Acts came into existence. At one time people with a certain mentality would always tell you that the people's agitation did this. They agitated. The other element, the landlord class, seemed to have been exempt from any particular blame, but I know, and a good many will agree with me, that the landlord element were always a much more highly-organised body of men. They were in the position of getting better information, and it is a doubtful point if they did not connive to a certain extent at bringing such a state of affairs about. I cannot feel that it is fair to blame people who have really a natural wish to obtain the land. When times are bad and depression exists they have not much hope. They do not see any change of the markets or of the value of what the land produces. Therefore, they really have not the heart to agitate, and that, to my mind, has been one of the disasters in land purchase in Ireland. The tenants and the people generally always bought when the market was highest. Under the 1923 Act no doubt land has been bought practically at the peak price. It will be many years in Ireland before land reaches that value again.

Mr. GOREY

Did the Deputy say under the 1923 Act?

Mr. O'REILLY

Yes, certainly. There were peak prices.

Mr. GOREY

Was it untenanted land?

Mr. O'REILLY

Deflation had only then commenced.

Mr. GOREY

Do you mean tenanted land or untenanted land?

Mr. O'REILLY

I mean the value of the land in general. It had reached nearly its top price.

Mr. GOREY

Ridiculous.

Mr. O'REILLY

It is not ridiculous. No doubt inflation caused that particular state of affairs.

Mr. GOREY

On a point of order— I think it is well to clear up this point. What does the Deputy mean?

ACTING-CHAIRMAN

Is the Deputy raising a point of order?

Mr. GOREY

Yes.

ACTING-CHAIRMAN

But what Deputy O'Reilly means does not involve a question of order.

Mr. GOREY

Then as a point of explanation. Is it the tenants' interest the Deputy is referring to or the price given to the landlords under the 1923 Act?

ACTING-CHAIRMAN

Deputy Gorey's different opinion can be expressed later, not raised as a point of order. Deputy O'Reilly is entitled to his opinion and to express it.

Mr. GOREY

It is only a question of understanding what the Deputy is talking about.

Mr. O'REILLY

Not alone in the matter of land has that been the case, but it is the case also with other commodities. From 1923 things started to drop. Deflation has not yet ceased. It may be practically on the point of reaching its level. There is no doubt about it that in these years land was bought too high, but, unfortunately, I suppose there was no power to prevent that from happening. Agitation did spring up, and that agitation was only natural. The people wanted the land because they saw what the land produced was valuable. I agree with what Deputy Gorey says that later on losses undoubtedly will have to be faced in that direction.

Now I will just say a few words upon the method of the division of the land. I have noticed in parts of the country farms of land divided up and given to tenants who have residences or houses on those particular farms. I notice that in very few cases did any of the tenants get farms beside their houses. I noticed that tenants were taken from other districts and brought in there and given farms beside the other tenants' houses. That does not lead to an economic state of affairs. I believe that an effort should be made in these cases to give land as close as possible to the houses of the particular tenants. Another point that I have met with is the question of migrants. I know that my constituency is the constituency that is expected and, I believe, is capable of absorbing a good many migrants. That is more or less a reversal of the policy that once prevailed in this country. I dare say the ancestors of the migrants were forcibly sent from the Eastern portion of Ireland, and particularly, perhaps, from the County Meath. It is but justice that the congestion be relieved in the West by placing men on farms in the County Meath, but I would suggest perhaps a little change in the method. These men are faced with big difficulties. They come into a district that perhaps may be a little hostile. There is a reason for that, and it is just to see if that can be eliminated that I raise this point.

These men get round about 80 acres of land. In some cases a farm of 600 or 700 acres is divided up amongst them. I believe that if you put one or two migrants on 600 or 700 acres of land and divide the remainder amongst the natives there, it would lead to greater harmony than prevails to-day. The next point involved is the question of uneconomic holders. It is but just that they should get an enlargement of their farms but then I fear another class is being left out of consideration, that I call the eligible landless men. I believe that the claims of these men should be taken into serious consideration, because a big proportion of them are capable, have a little capital and have experience. It is not right to allow them to lose heart, come to the conclusion that they are not going to get any chance, and, perhaps, compel them to seek a living in another country. I do not understand why some of those men were turned down because, to my mind, the object in dividing land is that people should get it who are capable of making a success of the division. What I mean is that a successful tenant would increase the value of the land to the highest percentage possible. That is an economy to the State. I believe that if more care and attention were given to the selection of tenants there would be fewer failures. After all, I suppose the object of the Land Commission, and of the Government, should be to make this country at least an 80 per cent. or a 90 per cent. success. I believe that it is very important that the question of eligible and uneconomic tenants, as well as the treatment of migrants when they come to this part of the country, should be taken into serious consideration.

Mr. HOGAN (Clare)

At the outset, let me pay the one compliment I have to pay to the Land Commission. I have many grouses with them but I have one real compliment to pay to them, and that is in the matter of giving time for the payment of annuities. Where I have a good case for an annuitant to be allowed some time to meet his liabilities I never approach the Land Commission without receiving a good deal of consideration. But, I am not at all satisfied that the Land Commission is speeding up the division of untenanted lands as quickly as it might. In my constituency I know from experience that there is a good deal of land still that might be easily divided up by a little exertion on the part of the Land Commission. The one great fault of that is that there is a good deal of land out of production which, if divided and given to the uneconomic holders and landless men, would probably be in production now, and would probably have something to say to this much discussed adverse trade balance. I am not at all satisfied with the progress made, although I think I heard a speech some time ago intimating that the Land Commission had practically disposed of all the undivided land. I am not satisfied with that, and I am anxious to hear what the Parliamentary Secretary has to say, why there is not a greater speeding up of the division of untenanted land amongst uneconomic holders.

Another matter to which I want to call attention is the way in which the Land Commission take over estates. One meets a case occasionally where first of all a Deputy gets into touch with the Land Commission, and points out that such an estate might be divided amongst a townland or parish where there are uneconomic holders, and suggests that it might be taken in hand and done expeditiously. I have one such case in my mind where the Land Commission was so informed by Deputies. I found that the Land Commission stated that such a place could not be suitably nor effectively divided, and would not be much use to the uneconomic holders in the district. What happened? The best portion of 300 or 400 acres was sold in lots and now. after a lapse of eight or ten months, when the best portion of the estate has been sold the Land Commission sends down inspectors to see if they can acquire it for the uneconomic holders in the district. Surely that is not the proper way to deal with this matter. Clearly the people who bought three or four divisions of the land bought the best. It was disposed of in lots, and now the Land Commission endeavours to dispose of the comparatively worthless portion of that estate to the uneconomic holders and landless men in the district. Further, there are cases of untenanted lands where there are old buildings and houses—I have a few in my mind—with forty or fifty acres attached. The Land Commission stated that this land would be let with the houses so as to make the taking of them an economic proposition, as otherwise the valuation of the houses would be too high for anybody to take them. I find that after some years the Land Commission cannot get people to take these houses, and they have to suggest the demolition of them and the sale of the material. Now, the trouble is as to who is to get the small divisions around them which, if they were divided with the first portion of the estate, would have offered no difficulty whatever.

In the matter of the collection of annuities by the Land Commission, I have a suggestion to make. The annuitants do not know exactly how they stand towards the Land Commission in several cases. I know a good many cases where the tenant, or annuitant, would get a demand for the current annuity, and while he strains his resources to meet that, he finds that the State Solicitor sends him a process for some annuities that were due for two or three years previously. We find that a good many people who cannot be charged with endeavouring to make political capital out of any mismanagement of the Land Commission—such people as District Justices—make the statement, with regard to the position in which annuitants find themselves as to the payment of their annuities, that they do not know exactly where they are. I must confess that I have gone as closely as I could into some of the accounts presented to me by annuitants in my constituency; I have endeavoured to find out how they stood with the Land Commission, but I could never be clear in my mind as to what they did owe. Cases are handed over to the State Solicitors, which puts costs on the annuitants, and sometimes when the annuities are £3 or £4 the costs are nearly half that. These people should know exactly where they stood before such claims are issued. The Land Commission ought to make it perfectly clear to them what they owe and in what fashion they owe it—how many years are due. I do know, as I said at the outset, that the Land Commission is prepared to meet reasonably any person who makes a fair offer and who shows an earnest of his intention to pay his annuity, but I do say that there are a good many of them who do not know what they actually owe, a good many of them who think that when they get a demand note for the current annuity it is probably the end of their liability. That is not at all the position. The position probably is that the State Solicitor is hatching a process which will probably put a few more pounds on them in costs.

I am not satisfied that the Land Commission is speeding up the division of untenanted land as it might, and that it is taking the necessary steps to see that land that might be divided among uneconomic holders is not split up and sold to people with a good deal of money, who are buying what are legally the rights of the uneconomic holders, then having the Land Commission, after the lapse of eight or ten months, purchasing the comparatively worthless residue of the estate and endeavouring to get the uneconomic holders to accept it. These are not cases of imagination; they are concrete cases that I know of, and I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to give such matters consideration, within the next year anyhow.

Mr. FAHY

I must say that personally I have experienced great courtesy from officials of the Land Commission whenever I have had occasion to go there on public duty. I think that many of them work very hard and that some of them are over-worked. But the history of that Land Commission office might explain many things. It has been responsible, I maintain, for the waste of public funds for about twenty years. The method of recruitment of the staff was responsible for that to a large extent. Some of them came in whenever they liked and left off duty whenever they liked. I do not mean the permanent civil servants; I mean the men who were recruited from outside years ago, often from the land-lord's agent type, and put in there. As a matter of fact, it used often to be said that when a stranger came in to the Land Commission they did not know whether he was going to be a temporary clerk or a land judge until he was there a couple of days. Their chief qualification often was that they had been very good in collecting rents for absentee landlords, who succeeded in getting them positions in the Land Commission. Jobs seemed to have been given to them indiscriminately. They then became land experts, perhaps land lawyers of a certain type. What expert knowledge of land they had or what was the extent of their legal knowledge I do not know.

I find that there are eighty-eight officials on the inspectorate staff now, with £43,000 in salaries, exclusive of travelling expenses, which, I think, are bulked at £34,000. I think that the House should be informed as to what exactly these inspectors do. What are the qualifications necessary for the post? What examinations have they passed, Civil Service or other, to qualify for such posts, or how were they recruited? It might be instructive also if it could be told what were the previous occupations of these men on the inspectorate staff. If they have no particular qualifications, then their salaries are altogether too high, or perhaps some of them should not be there at all. There were, I think, twenty-six inspectors costing £11,000. Some of the lists looked too large, so they were divided down and graded, and they do not all appear in the one list now. We have another class, called surveyors. There seems to be a number of surveyors. I do not know exactly what their duties are or what qualifications they have. I would like to know what the qualifications for land surveyors are and how they are recruited, what academic or practical qualifications or experience these men had before they were appointed.

As regards the financial side or the expense of administration I think that economies could be effected by transferring the Collection Department to the Minister for Finance, to whom the money goes eventually, and that the Record Branch should be amalgamated with the Land Registry Office, because the Land Registry Office is doing similar work, in fact often identical work. I believe that a Government expert was put in there to try to speed things up and to get rid of the arrears, and he got a duplicate system of registration which has caused more work and more confusion. I think economies could really be effected by transferring the Collection Department to the Department of Finance and amalgamating the Record Branch with the Land Registry Office. The work is very similar in both Departments, and I think there is duplication of staff there and unnecessary duplication of work by having two distinct offices.

Mr. DERRIG

I desire to support the demand of Deputy Ryan that the Land Commission should endeavour to expedite the vesting of the land purchased under the 1923 Act. I would also like to call attention to the position of certain tenants who purchased under previous Land Acts and who are not satisfied that fair judicial rents have been fixed. I have been in communication with the Land Commission about one case, and there are other cases of a similar character. These people were brought into the court; they were told that a fair judicial rent was being fixed, and now they are asked to believe that because a contract had been entered into that rent should hold. But the fact is that in some of these cases the people had no option but to accept the rent which the landlord was then— as has been pointed out by other speakers—by the strength of his organisation able to force upon them. I would like to know from the Parliamentary Secretary what steps are usually taken by the Land Commission in arranging for the re-valuation of these holdings, the owners of which have complained that a fair rent was not fixed. In the case I refer to the rent was fixed in 1909, I think, and it is substantially the same rent as was paid in the 'eighties, although the tenant is entitled to a reduction of 25 per cent.

On these Estimates, we are told by the Press, the public expects the Fianna Fáil Party to show where reductions could be made. I will not go over the ground that was traversed before in respect of this Estimate. I will simply say that I am not satisfied that the statement that the Parliamentary Secretary has made, and which is somewhat similar to the one which was published in the "Irish Times" several months ago, is sufficient justification for the staff that is being employed. Deputy Fahy has pointed out that there are a large number of surveyors. Well, if the surveyors are doing useful work, I am sure that nobody on these benches has any objection to their being well paid.

It is well known that surveyors and engineers, after leaving the university, are very poorly paid in comparison with other professional classes. There is no harm, however, in letting the House know why the staff should have been increased in that Department. In the British time there were only 50 surveyors and now there are 75. As regards inspectors, I am not going to deal with the resident inspectors, but rather with the temporary inspectors. There are 29 temporary inspectors estimated for during the coming year, and I want to know how it is that these officials who are only temporary should be costing so much. Some of them are getting £600 a year and some £500, whereas the highest officer amongst the surveyors is only getting a maximum salary of £600.

ACTING-CHAIRMAN

The question of salaries will arise on the Vote for the Department of Finance.

Mr. DERRIG

A point I want to make is that it seems extravagant to pay these temporary officials such a high rate compared with what the permanent members of the surveyor staff receive. Deputy Fahy raised a point in regard to promotions and the method of recruitment. I understand that matter will come up on other estimates. I think, however, it would be useful if we had a definite statement as to how recruits are taken into these different branches of the Land Commission. The estimate for the improvement of estates comes to £323,000. We are told that the increase of nearly £50,000 under that head is accounted for by a general purposes scheme in the congested districts.

Mr. RODDY

There is nothing at all in this year's estimate for a general purposes scheme in the congested districts.

Mr. DERRIG

Improvement of estates is referred to on page 222, and then there is given a list of the general items which that covers, and a general purposes scheme in congested districts.

Mr. RODDY

There are a few items remaining in respect of grants that were hitherto given by the Congested Districts Board—such as cottages inhabited by nurses and organisations of that kind. These will in future be paid out of the Improvement Vote. This item is very small. It will be noted that last year it was only an item of £100.

Mr. DERRIG

Seeing that the whole question of the handing over of the congested districts to the Department of Fisheries as well as the re-distribution of that particular Ministry will soon be up for discussion the House, I think, would be glad to have some information as to what particular schemes are in operation in the congested districts or are proposed during the coming year. I take it that the decision to hand over the Land Commission to the Department of Fisheries was not come to in a moment. It is nearly two years since the Gaeltacht Commission made its report. During that period the Government has had plenty of time to discuss the recommendations made by that Commission. Estimates are now before the House for the work of the Land Commission during the next twelve months, and I think it is not too much to ask what is being done in the way of preparing schemes for the congested or Irish-speaking areas. We have also an amount of £134,500—contribution towards charge for excess stock. This item represents a payment to the British Government. This is the amount of money payable by the Free State in respect of bonus and excess stock. It may be of interest to Deputies to know that an amount for the same purpose is not being paid in Northern Ireland.

I understand that when this agreement was made with the British that a contribution of £160,000 a year had previously been paid. It was then decided, I do not know why, that this payment of money for excess stock and bonus was a Free State liability, or at any rate, that it was a Free State liability to the extent of £134.500 per annum. If it were a complete Free State liability I am surprised that the British Government did not succeed, when they were driving such a good bargain for themselves in other respects, in making us pay the total amount, but apparently they were quite satisfied to get the £134,500 instead of what they had been previously getting, namely, £160.000. The amount which Northern Ireland is responsible for in respect of excess stock and bonus is not paid to the British at all because land annuities, as we know, are held in Northern Ireland, and the Exchequer there is responsible for the incidental expenses, including the payment of these charges.

Mr. J.T. NOLAN

On a point of order, is it in order to discuss payments by the Northern Ireland Parliament?

ACTING-CHAIRMAN

I was waiting for the Deputy to indicate whether he wished to discuss the validity of the payment or how he wanted to proceed. The Deputy, I think was present when I gave the ruling that it was not legitimate to discuss anything which could not be altered except by Act of Parliament.

Mr. DERRIG

I am not aware of the Act of Parliament under which, as Deputy Dr. Ryan has already pointed out, we are made responsible for payment of the collection expenses in connection with land annuities. Neither am I aware of the Act of Parliament under which we are made responsible for the payment of this bonus and excess stock.

ACTING-CHAIRMAN

Does the Deputy suggest that that figure could be made different without fresh legislation?

Mr. DERRIG

I hope that the Executive Council will give us an opportunity——

ACTING-CHAIRMAN

The Deputy must leave the subject, because otherwise he would not be in order.

Mr. DERRIG

I was just going to give expression to the wish that the Executive Council would afford us an opportunity of discussing the whole matter at an early date, because although, as Deputy Hogan and other Deputies have pointed out, we have been met very fairly by the Land Commission in certain cases of individuals which we have brought before them, and although we have not a great deal to grumble at in the way they have met us, still there is a very large number of people of whom we have knowledge who are in sore straits on account of the charges and claims made upon them. That is largely on account of the arrears which have become due since the troubled period. I think that, as well as affording these people an opportunity to pay up and of looking upon their cases in a spirit of reasonableness, the House ought to have an opportunity of going into the whole question as soon as possible.

Mr. GOULDING

I agree with Deputies who have made complaints regarding the cost of the collection of annuities. Some cases of extreme hardship have come under my notice to which I wish to call the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary. Small farmers owing one year's or a year and a half's annuities have been proceeded against. In one case the total amount of the decree on the annuity due was £13, to which was added £5 costs. There are similar cases where the costs are entirely out of proportion to the amount of the annuities due. Some effort should be made to lighten these costs on the unfortunate people, who find it hard enough to pay the annuities without being burdened by these heavy costs. In some cases the neighbours of those against whom decrees have been enforced for arrears of a year or a year and a half owed three or four years' annuities, and, though they have been decreed, the decrees have not been enforced. There is another aspect of the question. In portion of my constituency the river embankments have broken down in the past three years. On Monday morning I saw a considerable area of flooded lands. The seed-sowing machines were practically submerged, and one could see only the tops of them in these flooded areas. The potato and corn seeds had been sown, and of course these will be absolutely useless. These lands to which I refer were under three or four feet of water. That happens very frequently, and not every hundred years. These floods, when they occur in the spring, mean that the people lose their seed, and when they occur in the autumn they lose their corn. I have seen sheaves of oats and hay floating down the Blackwater. These people have no redress. The embankments should be kept in repair for them. I understand that in the Land Act of 1927 provision was made for this, but it has not been put into force. Many of these people have been decreed for lands they have been unable to till.

There is another grievance from which these people suffer, and which should be taken into account. They hold they have the first claim on the fishing rights of those rivers. They do not want them for nothing; they are quite willing to pay for them. I think if the fishing rights have to be transferred they should go to the tenants at an agreed price. It would be distinctly unfair if these people who are content to pay for land that is useless to them owing to flooding by the rivers should have the fishing rights of those rivers given away over their heads to strangers, thus depriving them of any benefits that might be got from the rivers that destroy their lands. Some Deputies referred to the division of land in the different counties, and to migrants coming in from outside districts. We all agree that every effort should be made to remedy the state of congestion in the West, but if migrants are brought into counties from outside areas there is a danger that it might create a mild form of land war on the part of those landless men who hold they have first claim on the land in those counties where it is being divided. The cases of those men should be considered when land is being divided. There are many farm labourers who would be efficient workers on the land and could work a farm efficiently. They certainly could be depended on to till land and they are very hardworking. Their claims should be taken into account.

Mr. DAVIN

I join with Deputy Goulding in protesting against the policy of the Land Commission in pursuing, unnecessarily in many cases, people for the recovery of Land Commission annuities without giving fair consideration to proposals which these people have to put forward for the payment of the amounts due. I do not think it is quite right when a State Solicitor gets a direction from the Land Commission to issue processes for the recovery of annuities due that he should proceed to carry out that instruction in face of the fact that some of the people concerned had called upon the State Solicitor and put up to him reasonable proposals for the payment of the amounts due. One of the State Solicitors in my constituency considers when he receives instructions from the Land Commission that he cannot entertain any proposal that comes to him from any person who is being sued. I know cases where poor people who find it very hard to get the money to pay have gone to this State Solicitor—I do not want to name him here—and he had not the courtesy to speak to them when they called on him to make proposals for payment. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will issue instructions which will make it possible for State Solicitors to see people who call on them, and to discuss with them proposals they have to put forward for the payment of the amounts due, and not to act on the instructions to sue regardless of any proposals put forward. I agree with the Deputy, and with others who have referred to the matter from time to time, that the Land Commission is a happy hunting ground for solicitors for the recovery of excessive costs. I think this is a matter that should be looked into.

Cases have been quoted on several occasions by Deputy White, of Tirconaill, which show the way the State Solicitor carries out his duties in that particular county, regardless of the costs and consequences to individuals concerned. Other Deputies have also cited cases supported by facts similar to those mentioned by Deputy White. I think State Solicitors should be satisfied with the fairly good salaries they receive from this State without trying to recover twice that amount by way of excessive costs from people who are called upon to pay Land Commission annuities. I congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary on the fact that he has provided an increased amount for the improvement of estates in this year's Vote. I think any money given for that purpose could be well and usefully spent by giving employment in carrying out drainage work and other improvements on estates acquired and divided under the 1923 Act. I wish to call attention to certain aspects of that part of the Land Commission work which has come under my notice. On a few occasions I had inquired of the Land Commission why they should divide estates and hand them over to people considered suitable without making roads, so as to enable them to go in and work those lands.

I recently had to put before the Land Commission an appeal for time for a tenant in a case where the Land Commission was suing an individual for the recovery of the annuity due. What was the position in that case? Nearly two years ago this estate was divided, and it was divided without having made roadways into it and without carrying out any drainage. In this case a man got 21 acres of land, but there was no road into that land. The Land Commission were prosecuting him for the annuities on a piece of land that he had never got an opportunity to work. If the money that is now being passed is to be used in the proper way the improvements should be carried out before the land is handed over to the people concerned. In the county of Offaly the improvement work has been done in a proper way. In Leix, on the other hand, no improvement work was carried out until a row was raised by some Deputy from the constituency. Then there is a chance that the work may be done in a year or two after the land has been handed over to the parties concerned.

I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to look over the files and see if he can find any complaint of that kind in Leix, and to make it clear to the people responsible that in future the improvement work must be done before the people are put in possession. I congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary upon providing the increased amount but I would ask him, after the money has been allocated by the Dáil, to see that the improvements for which that money is allocated have been carried out, and that the money will be spent within this year. As a member, and recently appointed Chairman of, the Public Accounts Committee, I have discovered that this House has been asked to vote sums of money for the improvement of estates. Other Deputies who are members of the Public Accounts Committee will agree from what has come before us that in some instances the money that has been voted has not been spent to the extent of, in one case, £40,000. That is to say, the money expended on improvements was £40,000 short of the amount voted by the Dáil.

There is a figure of £323,200 in the Estimate this year, and it appears to have been fairly accurately worked out, but if it is not a figure picked up from their imagination, and if that figure is to be voted now, let it be voted on the understanding that the money will be spent within the year for which it is being voted. We have had already surpluses in a large way at the end of the year. The ordinary Deputy is ignorant of these matters. I was ignorant of them up to a certain point until I got a certain amount of experience. When one sees those Estimates made out one would imagine that the officials of the Land Commission had gone into the minutest details to find out how much of this money would be spent. If these Estimates are drawn up accurately, let the money be spent as carefully as possible on the work for which it is being voted now. I have got a serious complaint to make, and I think it is a serious matter, a matter for just complaint in the Dáil, and that is that it should be possible, through laziness or through mal-administration of some kind or another, that in this county estates should be divided and the land handed over, but that yet the people to whom it is allotted have not been able to enter upon that land owing to the want of suitable improvements being carried out, and that even then the Land Commission should instruct the State Solicitor to sue in the Circuit Court for the annuities on this land which the individual who is sued is unable to work. That is a bad state of affairs, and it justifies me in making a complaint under this head, while at the same time congratulating the Parliamentary Secretary in having provided the money.

Mr. BRISCOE

Deputy Ryan referred to the cost of the collection of land annuities, but he was ruled out of order. We have also heard references during the course of this debate to the cost of collection. Only in one case could we have any sympathy with the costs not being fair, and that was in the case that Deputy Goulding has pointed out, where the tenant is forced to pay huge costs in proportion to what his rent would be in certain conditions. The Land Act of 1923 specifically laid down that the Land Commission was to make reasonable deductions in respect of the cost of collection of compounded arrears of rent under Section 19 (4) of the Act. These deductions were never made, and there seems to have been a conflict for a number of years between the Department of Finance and the Land Commission on this matter. In the Public Accounts Committee this matter was under discussion, and we were not satisfied with the attitude adopted by the Land Commission in this particular item. On the one hand, we have evidence in a minute from the Minister for Finance to the Land Commission to the effect that a huge staff was at one time employed in the collection of these compounded arrears, and that no deduction was made whatever from the landlords who received these moneys. Since then the system has been changed, and these compounded arrears are paid over a period in the same way as land annuities. Nevertheless, the fact remains that the arrears were collected and handed over to the landlords without any cost to them, while the State has to pay for the cost of their collection. If I am wrong in this matter the Parliamentary Secretary will correct me.

Mr. RODDY

Five per cent. was deducted.

Mr. BRISCOE

We, on the Public Accounts Committee, gave particular attention to that five per cent. to which the Parliamentary Secretary refers. That five per cent. that the Parliamentary Secretary refers to was paid to the agent of the landlords originally for collecting that rent to hand over to the Department, but no deduction was made from the landlord. I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to say whether I am right or wrong. The five per cent. was paid to the agent. The Public Accounts Committee's Report is here. It has been circulated and we will probably have a discussion on it later. But I believe the matter of the cost of the collection that has been talked about was ruled out of order as it was not specifically stated in the Act. I would like to hear some explanation as to why the cost of the collection was not deducted. I am convinced that the cost of collection of these compounded arrears should be recovered from the landlords who received the rent.

Mr. J.J. BYRNE

I did not intend to take any part in this debate at all, for I always considered that the city man knows very little about land. The only thing I wish to say in rising to speak to the Estimate is to reply, very briefly, to Deputy Briscoe, who has just sat down. There has been trouble for some considerable time over the cost of the collection of these compounded arrears, but Deputy Briscoe knows as well as I do that the Land Act of 1923 fixed, in the first instance, the purchase price of the land. Under this Act the Land Commission decided that no charge should be made for the collection of compounded arrears. It was suggested to-day that the cost of collecting these arrears or the cost of the collection of the annuities in lieu of rent could reasonably be transferred to the Department of Finance. I think the case to which Deputy Briscoe has drawn attention is a clear refutation of that particular argument. The Comptroller and Auditor-General in his Report on the Land Commission has drawn attention to the mode in which these arrears are being collected. Deputy Briscoe is perfectly right, as far as I know, in the statement made that no costs have been charged for the collection of these arrears. But I was sorry that Deputy Briscoe finished at that point. In my opinion, Deputy Briscoe should not have stopped at that point. Deputy Briscoe knows as well as I do that the position has now been regularised under the Land Act of 1927.

Mr. BRISCOE

I mentioned the fact that the matter had now been regularised and that the people were paying their compounded arrears on the same basis as the land annuities, but I also stated that the costs incurred in these collections have never been recovered, That is what I am referring to.

Mr. J.J. BYRNE

I think that the point that does concern the House is that a certain discrepancy did occur but that owing to the operations of the Committee of Public Accounts this discrepancy will not occur in the future. I have ventured to draw the attention of this House to the fact that the position has now been regularised and that those compounded arrears will in future be added to the purchase money. No doubt about it there has been no charge made and I do not know whether Deputy Briscoe is correct in stating that under the Act of 1923 powers existed. I am not going to question the point emphatically but differences of opinion on this side of the House as to the validity of the charge did arise. Therefore, I do not think that anything can be gained at this juncture by dealing with that particular matter. The thing is that this particular discrepancy in the matter of cost not being deducted, cannot in the future occur and will not arise.

Mr. MAGUIRE

It has been suggested as an explanation for the high price paid in many cases to the landlords for their interest in the land that it was due to the pressure made on behalf of the tenants and to representations made to the body known as the Irish Land Commission. That body in their generosity and in their anxiety to facilitate the farmers made haste in purchasing the land and they purchased it at too high a price. If that were the explanation, the attitude of the Land Commission at a later date is difficult to find an explanation for. I refer to the unreasonable manner in which they persecute farmers and compel them to pay land annuities. It has been admitted by advocates of the Land Commission that they paid too much. The ruthless manner in which they persecute farmers to make them pay land annuities would very badly correspond with the generosity that we have been told about in regard to the purchase in the first instance of the land. As far as I am aware there has been no form of generosity on the part of the Land Commission, and I have fairly wide experience of the methods of the Land Commission with their tenants. On the contrary, there has been every form of unfairness and, as an instance, I will just quote one concrete case which is typical of hundreds I know of and I am sure there are thousands of the same sort around the country. I refer to a holding of land on the Whyte Estate, Co. Leitrim. The rent of the farm is £21 9s. 0d. Arrangements to purchase the farm by the Land Commission were made with Mr. Justice Ross. The lands were then in the Land Judge's Court. This took place in 1911. In the same year the tenant made application to have a judicial rent fixed. The case came into Court and the judicial rent was fixed at £13 11s. 0d. The Land Commission carried through their negotiations and in the ordinary way could have given a reduction of 7/- in the £ in this case. They refused to give any reduction at all.

It was stated that at the time they negotiated the sale of the estate in 1911 the rent was then £21 9s. The tenant had applied to have a fair rent fixed before a competent judge, and with competent valuers engaged. The fair rent was fixed at £13 11s., but the Land Commission considered that was too much, and consequently they refused to give him the benefit that in the ordinary way would accrue to him as a tenant. He was deprived of the advantage solely for the reason that it would deprive the landlord of something in the way of the price that the landlord would get. That may not have been in the Land Commission's mind, but anyway it is the result of their action. That is an extraordinary case, and it is typical of many others. It does not bear out the suggestion that the high price was paid for the land because of the generosity of the Land Commission and their anxiety to facilitate tenants in getting land quickly. The landlord is benefited in that case as in practically every other case.

I know of several cases where land was purchased for sub-division amongst tenant farmers. These farmers were cajoled in many instances by the Land Commission, and they were encouraged to leave smaller holdings, more cheaply rented, and take up what appeared to be more profitable larger holdings. After some years those farmers found themselves in their new holdings crippled with an extraordinary rent out of all proportion to what the land was able to bear. Many of these people came to me as a public representative to see if the Land Commission would take back the land and relieve them of their impossible burden. So far the Land Commission have nothing to their credit but the distribution of land. They purchased land at too high a price, with the result that the rent placed on the land makes it impossible for the occupying tenant to work it economically, and makes it impossible for him even to meet the rent.

Mr. RODDY

When did this migration that the Deputy has referred to take place? The Deputy has stated that some farmers were transferred from one farm to another. When did that take place?

Mr. MAGUIRE

I cannot give you the dates at the moment. I can give you the date in the first case I quoted. I have here a reply, dated 4th April, 1928:—"With further reference to the above case (C.C.B. Whyte Estate, Co. Leitrim, R. No. 248—Michael Kilduff) and your letter of the 15th ultimo enclosing communication from Michael Kilduff, which is returned herewith, I beg to state that the question of abatements claimed in respect of the rent by the tenant has been fully considered and, as the result of prolonged legal proceedings, the Courts have decided that the rent of the holding must be paid. The facts of the case are as follows:—

The rent of the holding at the date of purchase of the estate by the late Congested Districts Board was £21 9s. 0d., and the price paid for it, and therefore fixed for re-sale, was based on this rent. Subsequently the tenant had a judicial rent fixed at £13 11s. 0d., which was far below the rent purchased, less the customary abatement allowed to tenants. No abatement could, therefore, be allowed to Michael Kilduff off the new rent, and the Court of Appeal decided that he is not entitled to such reduction..."

Mr. RODDY

When were these tenants planted out in new holdings on which alleged exorbitant rents were asked?

Mr. MAGUIRE

I cannot give the dates now, but it was within the last ten years. Reference has been made here to the cost put on the tenants by the Land Commission in suing for land annuities. I have no doubt at all that there are instances where the Land Commission have no alternative left but to sue; but I do claim there is no necessity for the Land Commission to put costs on tenants who had not paid their last December rent up to the 28th March last. I have instances of where tenants whose rents were due in December sent their land annuities on the 23rd March. There were no civil bills issued, but the Land Commission returned the annuities and told the tenants they should go to the State Solicitor who had the cases in hands. No court would be held until June next. I have a few particulars with regard to that court area for last year, and they are of interest. I think 124 cases were tried for defaulting land annuities. Of this number some 54 were sued for a sum under £1 each, and the cost in these cases was 11/6. The balance was for sums from £5 to £10. It will take some explanation to explain away why these costs should be put on the unfortunate tenants. Land annuities which were due in December, but which were forwarded by the tenants on the 23rd of March, were returned with an explanation that there were costs incurred and that the tenants would have to deal with the State Solicitor. The Land Commission have certainly been very generous in their promises to the tenants. I have experience of their inspectors, when they came to farmers asking them to sign documents to facilitate the closing of the sale of an estate, promising them magnificent things which were never realised. These promises have still to be kept. I have instances in which these inspectors misled the people by forcing them into contracts which were unjust and immoral. I referred on a previous occasion to the Land Commission making arrangements in which the tenants were led to believe that they were to pay a certain price, and they signed agreements on that understanding. Since I referred to this matter previously I have had hundreds of letters from people on various estates saying that they are in a similar position.

I dealt already with my own farm, in connection with which arrangements were made to purchase it seventeen years ago. The advance on the farm was £400, and we were led to believe that that was the maximum price to pay off the landlord's interest. For seventeen years I have paid a half-yearly annuity of £7 15s. 9d. As an investment that is worth £330. What I will have to pay will be over £700 instead of £400, which the owner at that time was told would be the purchase price. That is not the action of a Department which is in sympathy with the tenants. It is the action of a Department which has been guilty of fraud and misrepresentation so far as the country people are concerned. I will insist on having these grievances rectified in this House, but if the House turns a deaf ear to them I will tell the House that the tenant farmers who, in the past, were able to deal with grievances which were unjust will be able to do the same to-day.

Mr. RODDY

Will the Deputy cite the particular case to which he is referring?

Mr. MAGUIRE

I can give you upwards of 200 cases, but I cannot give them at the moment.

The PRESIDENT

The Deputy states that annuities have been paid half-yearly to the amount of £7 15s. 9d., that the value of such annuities is £300, and that that amount should be taken off a sum of £400 borrowed seventeen years ago.

Mr. MAGUIRE

That is so.

The PRESIDENT

I presume that the Deputy will get some information from the financial members of his Party on that contention.

Mr. MAGUIRE

I do not think that I require any information on that matter. I am thoroughly conversant with the facts. Representations were made to the tenants seventeen years ago that if they purchased the land they would become the owners after paying annuities for sixty-eight years. That was the arrangement made, and the annuity has been paid for seventeen years, but no recognition of that payment is allowed for. Is that fair or honest dealing? The land is not vested yet. For seventeen years a sum of £7 15s. 9d. has been paid half-yearly. Any insurance company will tell you that that is worth over £300 at the end of seventeen years.

The PRESIDENT

Will they deduct the interest on £400?

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

We need not argue that now.

Mr. MAGUIRE

If the President is prepared to take the interest at five per cent. on the £400 I am prepared to take the balance. The money has not been advanced, and I have got no benefit whatever from it. I should be allowed for the annuities I have paid. When you advance the money I will be prepared to pay it off, but you cannot charge it to me twice, as I made a contract. I think that is rather an unfair way of getting out of a shady bargain. I do not suggest, and I am not simple enough to suggest, that the Government is responsible for what took place seventeen years ago, but I defy anyone to say that that action is other than one of culpable fraud and gross misrepresentation. I would be sorry that anyone hearing the circumstances would stand up here to defend such action.

The PRESIDENT

I want the Deputy's case made clear, as it is not clear to me.

Mr. MAGUIRE

I thought you wanted to make a point of it. That has been my experience of the Land Commission. They have been most unfair to the tenant. They have not been generous in the matter of fixing prices. They have not been fair in the matter of fixing rents. They have been unfair in suggesting to the farmers that the price arranged at a certain time was the price they would have to pay, but they have not kept that bargain. They have not kept their word to the evicted tenants. I know several evicted tenants who hoped that when the Land Commission came in they would be able to get back to the land from which they were evicted or to some other land. Many of them have lost hope and have gone abroad. Many of them expected that they would be called back some day and be awarded a patch of land on which they could live. Nothing, however, has been done for them and there has been more disappointment among them than among any other class of people who fought for the betterment of the country. As regards congestion, we were told that the Land Commission would take people from congested holdings and place them in suitable land. Last week at a railway station in Leitrim forty-three people left for America and eighteen of them were heads of households, some of whom left their children and wives behind. That is the way congestion is being relieved. These people were not going to America on a holiday and the Land Commission have done nothing in the way of trying to find them larger holdings. So much for the work of the Land Commission.

I referred on a previous occasion to other portions of their work. I referred to their administration of public money. Unfortunately I was not in order at that time, but I presume that on this occasion I can refer to it. My complaint refers to the administration of the public money known as the relief work money spent in relief grants. Portion of it was spent a very short time ago. I went on to show that in one concrete case this money had been misappropriated by a man who signed himself as the President of the Cumann na nGaedheal Club. I will not delay the House by reading the letter again. I have read it before. The result of that work was that this Chairman or President of the Cumann na nGaedheal had clearly the disbursement of this money. He disbursed it in a rather shady way inasmuch as he entered into a contract with a neighbour of his for liberty to have a road made over his land. Having made that contract at least you would imagine that he would be honest enough to stick to it or that the Land Commission officials would see that the contract was strictly adhered to. They did not.

Mr. RODDY

That individual had no power or authority to enter into any contract for the Land Commission.

Mr. MAGUIRE

What individual?

Mr. RODDY

The individual you referred to, whoever he may be or to whatever organisation he may belong. I am waiting for the Deputy to give particulars of the case.

Mr. MAGUIRE

I thought perhaps you knew the case I referred to.

Mr. RODDY

I assumed it was the same case the Deputy referred to some time ago.

Mr. MAGUIRE

He may not have any authority to enter into a contract, but it is rather peculiar that he should have authority to control public money and that he entered into this contract and carried it through to the extent——

Mr. RODDY

What contract is the Deputy referring to?

Mr. MAGUIRE

If the Parliamentary Secretary will allow me, perhaps I had better give him over the whole correspondence.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

We will keep to the Land Commission. I do not know whether the Deputy should use the Dáil for the purpose of accusing a particular individual of having, I think he said, misappropriated moneys and of dishonesty. That kind of accusation against an individual should not be made here, for the reason that the Deputy is privileged here. Of course if he could keep telling us that what the Commission did was wrong rather than what the individual did was wrong, he would be quite in order.

Mr. MAGUIRE

I had not intended to refer to this individual at all to-day, but since the Parliamentary Secretary has alleged that the case I referred to was incorrect inasmuch as that individual had not authority to enter into a contract, I think I am forced to enter into the particulars and to relate the whole circumstances of it for him.

Mr. RODDY

What contract was it?

Mr. MAGUIRE

I do not know whether I am in order in reading it.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

Yes.

Mr. MAGUIRE

The contract that was entered into states: "I... agree to give up my right and title to the land acquired to make the necessary changes in the road. The changes in the road shall be those marked out by myself and ... have already agreed. We both shall block out the road. I, myself, shall be ganger and my son shall get work. I agree to carry out the instructions of the supervisor as regards hours of work and the diligence of my gang as part of my duty as ganger.

"(Signed) ..."

Mr. RODDY

That is not a contract. There is no road word undertaken without a proper Land Commission contract being signed.

Mr. MAGUIRE

That is signed by two witnesses. That is the contract I referred to. A copy of it was handed to the inspector of the Land Commission, and as a result the work was started. The work was started before the last June election, but this year, when the Road Grant came along, the road was not finished. It was set aside because it was not found convenient to carry out this agreement I have here. That is very much in contrast with the distribution and allotment of money in other districts. I have here particulars of a case in another area in which a sum of 16/2 was deducted from the workers engaged on certain work. Of that sum one shilling was to be paid towards forced membership of the Cumann na nGaedheal. There are three men who are prepared to verify that statement on oath. That occurred in another part of the country.

Mr. SHAW

Was the Deputy not a member of the Cumann na nGaedheal branch there twelve or eighteen months ago?

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

He cannot be criticised for that.

Mr. S. JORDAN

You surely cannot blame him for seeing the light since.

Mr. MAGUIRE

I hope when the Deputy has heard these statements he will cease to be a member of Cumann na nGaedheal. That is another concrete case, and I am prepared to give more evidence showing that there was mal-administration of public funds. A grant was made to start a road going through part of a county. The Commissioners' inspector went there, and incidentally he met a man in the locality and he asked him would he act as ganger on this road. The man said he would not or that he could not suggest the name of anyone who would. After a little while the inspector met another man on the road in the same district and asked him would he act as ganger. He said that he would. The inspector then ordered him to apply to his supervising ganger, who happened to be leader of the local branch of Cumann na nGaedheal. He asked him for the necessary papers and books, but he refused to give them. A third party, having heard of the matter, went at once to the local organisation and pulled the wires, with the result that the works have not been started yet, although the ganger was appointed by the inspector from Dublin.

These are some of the facts and some of the ways in which I have known the Land Commission to administer their work. I have already referred to the manner in which they are pressing tenants in the collection of annuities. I will give another case which is typical of hundreds. I think the Parliamentary Secretary asked me a question, which perhaps I would be able to answer now, as to whether I had any evidence in these cases. I referred to a case where land annuities were due to be paid in December last, but they were not paid until 23rd March. The annuity was sent on direct to the Land Commission, who sent it back with notification that the tenant would have to pay in addition the expenses of the State Solicitor. The case to which I refer is that of Michael Dolan, of Latoon. He sent his land annuity, due in December, on 23rd March. It was returned to him with the statement that he would have to pay the local State Solicitor's costs. Another concrete case is that of Mrs. Maguire, of Cornamon. In 1922 she paid her land annuities to the State Solicitor, which were due in December. The receivable order was not returned after the December payment. In 1923 she was sued for two years' annuities. She held the counterfoil from the post office and was able to show she had already paid. She was proceeded against, and on two occasions was brought before the court. The judge asked the solicitor for the Land Commission to have the matter investigated and settled. Nothing was done, but on the next occasion the tenant was ill, was not in court, and judgment was given against her. These are instances of many similar cases which I could go on enumerating ad lib. I move to report progress.

The Dáil went out of Committee.

Progress reported. Committee to sit again to-morrow.