Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 22 May 1930

Vol. 34 No. 19

In Committee on Finance. - Vote 55—Land Commission (Resumed).

Question again proposed:—

That a sum not exceeding £423,981 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, 1931, 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.s. 17, 18 and 20; 53 and 54 Vict., c. 49, s. 2; 54 and 55 Vict., c. 48; 3 Edwd. VII., c. 37; 7 Edwd. VII., c. 38 and c. 56; 9 Edwd. VII., c. 42; Nos. 27 and 42 of 1923, 25 of 1926, 11 of 1926, 19 of 1927, 31 and 41 of 1929).

Mr. Derrig

I desire to propose the amendment standing in my name:

"That the Estimate be referred back for reconsideration."

Up to the present the Dáil has not refused to provide any money that was asked for by the Land Commission, and, time after time, Deputies from all Parties have expressed themselves agreeable to provide any further finances that might be required or any further staff that might be required to enable the work of the Land Commission to proceed with more expedition and to be done as quickly as we all wish that it should. We were told last year that there was a considerable slackening off in some branches of the work, and that, owing to the necessity for vesting tenanted land, a great deal of work in the untenanted land section had to be left over. Furthermore, we were told that there had been an accumulation of business in that branch, and I have been told that the Land Commission finds itself blocked in its dealings with untenanted land. If we are to understand from that that the staff of the Land Commission is absolutely inadequate to carry out the work that was laid before them in 1923 when the Land Act was passed, and when it was suggested, and I think understood, that all outstanding questions of land purchase would be well on the way to solution at the end of five years, then the House should have some clear explanation about it.

Year after year we are providing enormous sums of money for the Land Commission and the most that we can hear, in return for this expenditure, is that the Land Commission is just barely managing to avoid further accumulations of work. The work is piling up on them, they say, and the staff is absolutely incapable of dispatching it with any greater expedition. For that reason I think some further explanation is necessary, and I have put down this amendment. The total cost of the Land Commission is £750,000. Of this, £60,000 is for Gaeltacht housing; £211,000 is for the improvement of estates, and £230,000 is for salaries, wages and allowances. I think it cannot be said, in view of the last figure, that the Land Commission is in any way understaffed. What the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary have to show the House is what value the country is getting for this expenditure. Is it that the Land Commission was taken over as an effete Department and that it was found absolutely impossible to reorganise it so as to deal with the new situation; that there was the old procedure there, and that the old red tape methods were there, and that the present Ministry have been quite unable to grapple with them? Have they, instead of trying reorganisation, tried to carry on with impossible machinery?

The amount allowed for travelling expenses, £32,000, would seem to indicate that officials are given every facility for travelling and that no stint whatever is made in the generous provision given for allowing them to go about the country and carry out their work. Although, as I have said, I believe that most of the work in connection with the vesting of land is a legal matter and does not require any great travelling, nevertheless I have not objected to the extraordinarily large amount paid for travelling expenses. We were told that it is absolutely necessary that officials should be able to go about the country to investigate rights of way, water rights, boundaries, turbary and various other matters of that description. I think, however, that the expenditure is out of all proportion to the value we get.

Further down in the Estimate we see that £12,000 in sub-head K is to be advanced to meet deficiencies in income from untenanted land. That is to say, the taxpayer is expected to subsidise the holding up of untenanted land by the Land Commission, land which they are setting. In that way we are subsidising the holding up of schemes which should result in the planting of population, whether they be uneconomic holders, landless men or the sons of farmers. We are holding up that by granting that subsidy. We are also paying under sub-head I £21,000 towards the settlement of Land Committee cases. These were cases where land was taken over under the old Sinn Fein courts. I had expected that after so many years, no matter how involved and intricate these cases were, they would by this time have disappeared from the Estimates. Apparently, however, they have still not been dealt with. That is proof, in my opinion, that the work of the Land Commission is not proceeding with the expedition with which it should proceed.

As regards the Gaeltacht housing grants, the position is that we on this side of the House have no information as to how the Act is working. We would like the Parliamentary Secretary when replying to give some indication as to the amount of money expended already, the programme that is likely to be carried out during the coming year, and when he expects that the total amount that was intended by this House to be spent on housing in the Gaeltacht—namely, a quarter of a million—will be expended. On page 233 there is a footnote stating that allowance is made to the economic geologist attached to the Department of Industry and Commerce for acting as an expert adviser in connection with mineral rights. I would be glad if the Parliamentary Secretary would tell us what the position is in regard to mineral rights. I think that under a particular Act the Land Commission have been granted certain powers to deal with the question of mineral rights. As a promise has been given to set this whole question in order, I would be glad to know what the Land Commission are doing in that matter.

I put down a question to the Parliamentary Secretary asking him to state the total amount of money which tenants are paying as payments in lieu of rent. The House is familiar with the fact that before tenants are vested under the Acts 1923-27 they are paying what is called payment in lieu of rent. That, however, is of no advantage to them, in so far as no reduction is made in the ultimate purchase price which the tenant has to pay. No reduction is made either in regard to sinking fund or interest on principal by these payments. The tenant can go on paying money in lieu of rent year after year and for many years. At the end of that time, when the Land Commission sees fit to vest him, he has to begin to pay all over again for 68½ years until he clears off the purchase price. In the year 1928-9 the tenants in this way paid £898,000, of which £756,000 went to the landlords. Therefore the landlords or their representatives lost nothing. Their rights were safeguarded under the Act. The Land Commission lost nothing either, because they were paid the expense of collecting, which came to something over £20,000.

It is a most remarkable thing that the Minister for Finance has found this a most profitable transaction— this business of holding up the vesting of land which, if it were carried out, would actually mean a burden on the State. In so far as the State should finance the transaction, provide the land bonds, pay a contribution of 10 per cent. on purchase, instead of having to provide that and having to bear any burden in the carrying out of the work in connection with land purchase and the vesting of tenants, the State actually gains on the delay. Therefore it is quite clear, from the point of view of the Minister for Finance and, I fear, from the point of view of the Land Commission, that there is strong financial reason that instead of hurrying up this matter they should delay it as much as possible. In the year 1928-9 £132,000 was paid in income tax, so that tenants, as well as paying the landlords and the cost of collecting, have also been paying the Land Commission.

Since the 1923 Act was passed I find that the total payments by the tenants up to the latest available date came to nearly £6,000,000, of which four and three-quarter million may be said to have gone to the landlords and about £1,200,000 in income tax to the State. Thus, while farmers all over the country are complaining about the delay in vesting and the burdens of annuities which fall on them, in addition to many other burdens, they are, in fact, subsidising the Minister for Finance and his income tax officials and paying over this huge sum of money. We have often urged that reduction. I do not care whether it can be made by vesting the tenants and carrying out the legal processes which are said to be necessary or whether, as in the North, the Government say to the farmers "whenever we vest you we will see that you will get value for the money paid; we will recoup you for the payments made so that you will not be in the position of paying £900,000 a year for so many years and that all that money, so far as you are concerned, is a dead loss."

There are 90,000 tenants involved in that. I ask the House whether they are satisfied that that state of affairs should continue. There may be a slight reduction every year from this time forward if, as we are told, the Land Commission is going to concentrate on this aspect of the matter, and there may be reductions in the amount paid in lieu of rent, but there will be an increase in the number of tenants vested and paying annuities and who are in the position of knowing that every payment they make is helping to clear off the debt and that after a certain time they will become owners of the land. It is proceeding very slowly. Although there has been an improvement last year, the total number of holdings vested came to 4,500.

Mr. Roddy

That is not the total.

Mr. Derrig

That is for last year.

Mr. Roddy

No, the total was 9,217.

Mr. Derrig

In a reply given to me by the Parliamentary Secretary he stated that during the year ending 31st March, 1930, 2,781 judicial tenancies and 1,786 non-judicial tenancies were vested.

Mr. Roddy

That is under the Act of 1923.

Mr. Derrig

That makes a total of 4,567. That is under the Land Act of 1923. Further down we learn that the total number remaining to be vested is 47,000 judicial and 32,000 non-judicial tenants, and of these, 7,540 judicial and 8,186 non-judicial have been provisionally gazetted prior to vesting. In spite of the improvement, the fact is that vesting is likely to go on for twenty years even if no fresh work accumulates. If the Land Commission simply deals from this time forward with the number of judicial and non-judicial tenants who remain to be vested it seems to me at the present rate of progress it will take a generation. It was stated that the Land Commission—and I tried to make allowance for that fact—was clogged with the amount of work in the untenanted land section. There has been a definite slackening off in that section in various ways, and I hold that the work of vesting should proceed more quickly.

If we take it from another point of view and ask ourselves how much money has been issued in land bonds every year, representing the total amount of the proceedings which the Land Commission has in hands, we will find that the amount falls very far short of that issued during the old regime. Under the 1903 Act, I think it was, it was definitely arranged that between five and six million pounds should be floated every year. According to the 1928-1929 accounts of the Land Commission the total amount floated up to the end of the financial year came to £5,700,000. The total amount that will be necessary to complete the work has been stated to be over £30,000,000—some say £33,000,000. At the rate of one and a half million issued every year, obviously it would also take a generation to complete the work.

Mr. Roddy

I am afraid the Deputy is quoting the wrong figures. Since 1903 over £12,000,000 has been issued in land bonds. If the Deputy will refer to my statement he will see that.

Mr. Derrig

I am looking at page 12 of the Land Commission Accounts for 1928-9, Land Purchase Account No. 3; Land Acts, 1923 to 1927, Advance Account; 4½ per cent. bonds issued by the Land Commission, £5,700,000, up to the 31st March, 1929. For the year under review the amount is £1,670,000. If there is a mistake I submit the mistake is in the accounts. If the Parliamentary Secretary can show me that a great deal more land bonds have been issued than is stated here I shall be very glad. In any case it would be well if the House were acquainted with the exact procedure.

Mr. Roddy

The Deputy has referred to the land bonds issued under the Land Act of 1923. The actual figures for the issue of land bonds under the Acts of 1923, 1903, and 1909 up to the 31st March, 1929, was £12,000,000 odd. The figure which the Deputy has quoted refers to the issue of land bonds under the Act of 1923.

Mr. Derrig

Where are the other figures given?

Mr. Roddy

They are given in the other tables.

Mr. Derrig

In any case it was stated in 1923 that it would take £30,000,000 to complete the work of land purchase. My figures may be incorrect in so far as they represent only the amount issued under the 1923 Act. If the figure of £12,000,000 given by the Parliamentary Secretary is correct, are we to understand that the amount remaining to complete land purchase is £18,000,000? I want to know whether there is any obligation on the Department of Finance, or whoever is responsible to restrict the issue of land bonds. I know that the issue must have cognisance of money market conditions and the price of land, but, generally speaking, I think the House will be glad to have an assurance that there is no other obligation, that the Ministry have full power to issue whatever bonds they think fit, and that there is no obligation on them to put a limit to their issue.

It was stated that the vesting of land could not be carried out in the way we suggested. It could not be carried out because, according to the Minister for Agriculture, it is an impossible condition, and the present state of affairs, by which tenants paid in the last financial year under review, £854,000, by which they are not going to get credit for that amount and are not going to get the reduction which they would get if they were vested, is liable to continue.

It seems to me that if the Land Commission were in earnest that they could get over this matter under the various Land Acts. For example under the 1923 Act, Section 29, sub-section (4) there is a provision in regard to retained holdings. A holding might be taken over as a retained holding by the Land Commission and the standard purchase annuity fixed there and then, as far as I can understand from the Section, and subsequently the vesting could take place. It speaks of the standard purchase annuity being paid from the appointed day until the gale day next after the vesting of the holding or until such time as the Land Commission may carry out an apportionment or variation therein. That is to say there is a provision for holding the land in the first instance, fixing the standard purchase annuity and afterwards arranging certain legal matters or certain modifications which the Land Commission want to carry out.

Under the 1897 Act, it seems to me that the Land Commission have power, as was suggested from this side of the House, to put on the vesting order certain reservations or conditions, provided it was understood by them that these reservations and conditions were accepted by the tenant purchaser and that subject to such reservations the Land Commission could issue the vesting order upon which these reservations or exceptions were set out. Section 34 sub-section (2) of the 1896 Act states that the vesting order may declare that the sale is subject to or free from particular rights or appurtenances.

Are we to understand, as has been suggested to me, that under the compulsory powers granted to the Land Commission under the 1923 Act, procedure is liable to be slower than it was heretofore, that because heretofore certain obligations were placed on the landlord, while now everything is done for the landlord at the expense of the tenant or the State, that there has been a slowing down, that far more work is necessary by the Land Commission and is not done—I am not blaming them for that—but owing to these circumstances it is not done so efficiently, and that it is more troublesome and more detailed? It seems extraordinary that procedure should be slower under compulsory powers, where it was intended the work should be done quickly and not be left hanging over. If that is so I submit the House should open up the whole matter of land purchase, and should cut out the loopholes and the various provisions under the Acts that have been passed by the House, by which certain people or certain interests are holding up this work.

I submit, therefore, that the work of vesting is not proceeding with the rapidity with which it should, and that if the explanation so often given, even if it is a true explanation, that arrangements have to be made to find out about the boundaries and other things is right, it is quite clear from the estimate there is sufficient staff to deal with that matter, and that that ought not to be any excuse. There is no reason why, if the original intentions of the House were carried out, all untenanted land should be taken over on a certain date, that more progress should not be made in that respect.

One of the difficulties the Land Commission has to deal with is the increased prices fixed on the land by the Judicial Commissioner. From certain figures supplied to me, it appears that the total prices originally fixed in certain cases which were ultimately brought before him on appeal amounted to £896,000, which he raised to £962,000, representing an increase of £66,000, or nearly 7½ per cent. Although this was a serious burden on the tenants —since the Land Commission sends down expert valuers who put decent prices on land, and they must have mainly in view whether the land at those prices will be an economic proposition for those who have to live on it—nevertheless the Land Commission proceeded in all these cases and gave the benefit of the doubt to the vendors, and except in one or two small cases proceeded with the work and paid a higher price. When that is so, and when the landlord or the owner can go to the Land Commission under different sections of the Act and hold up the work, even when it is the settled policy of the Government, I submit that it is unfair, on the other hand, to have the position that tenants who are entitled to be vested for many years past are being mulcted in large sums of money every year.

I have a number of cases in my own constituency in which I made repeated application to the Land Commission to deal with the problem of groups of congests or uneconomic holders. I have an advertisement here in connection with a ranch called the Cloghna ranch, consisting of "250 acres of excellent grazing, to be let in suitable divisions of from seventy to forty acres each." That land is being let by the Land Commission for many years, and long before I came into this House Deputy Doyle was asking why it was not being distributed amongst the neighbouring uneconomical holders. After all the trouble we have taken to try to get this land divided amongst the people, the House is asked to subsidise that state of affairs and to continue to have this land let to people who can well afford to get a living in some other way and to keep it from people who need it, or even if they got the land making them pay five or six times the price they would have to pay if they were placed on the land as the ultimate occupiers.

Since the 1923 Act was passed, according to their figures, the Land Commission in County Carlow has only dealt with Committee cases which were handed over from the old Sinn Féin administration. I give it credit for carrying out that work successfully and for giving general satisfaction, but after so many years I ask, could it not be possible to have done a little more than to bring to an end what was begun in 1920 and 1921? The only other cases besides that of Kelletstown, Moyle and Duckettsgrove are two representing 571 acres. That is the only new work that the Land Commission has done in County Carlow, where there are large numbers of landless men, uneconomic holders and labourers, who have a good knowledge of agriculture and who in many cases are prepared to put up some kind of security that they will work the land properly if they get it. That county is one of the most industrious in the Free State, yet the only new work that the Land Commission has done to satisfy the requirements of these people is to take over 571 acres.

Mr. Law

I propose to deal with certain specific cases in my own district. I do not make any apology to the House for saying a few words on this matter, because, while I deprecate in a general way the bringing of particular cases to its notice, excluding the more general subjects, I think, at the particular stage which our land operations have reached, there is really very little use in the enunciation of general principles. We have long ago agreed that tenanted land is to be transferred as quickly as possible from the landlord to the occupiers. We are all in perfect agreement that where there is unoccupied untenanted land suitable for division it should be divided as quickly and as equitably as possible. We are naturally impatient of delay and each of us thinks of our own particular cases. I believe only those who are actually dealing with a particular estate can possibly be in a position to know what the difficulties are, and in a great many of the cases in which undue delay is alleged and in which undue delay seems, to the outsider, to occur it will be found that it was unavoidable. It is quite impossible so complicated is the whole business to deal with the transfer of the land in the summary manner in which some of us, in our desire to see a particular business got through quickly, are inclined sometimes to imagine it should be done.

I am not going to follow Deputy Derrig into those general considerations which he has raised. I really only want to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to deal with a couple of matters which interest my own constituency somewhat seriously. In the first place, I would very much like the Parliamentary Secretary to tell us what has been the result of the experiments in the reclamation of waste land carried out in County Donegal. I have been told that these experiments have been highly successful. I am informed that in one case—I think it is the Rose O'Donnell Estate—it has been found possible, at much less expense than has hitherto been experienced, to convert bog land into land suitable for carrying very good crops. If that is so, I think it would be very encouraging to the House, and it would mean this, that while unlimited developments are not possible in that direction, very great developments are possible throughout the Gaeltacht. I do not think that the Parliamentary Secretary has dealt with that, but I think it would be of interest to the House if he would state in some detail what has actually occurred there. If the experiments have been as successful as I have been led to believe they are I would like him to tell us what further developments the Land Commission have in mind, in Co. Donegal or elsewhere. About a year ago I brought to the Parliamentary Secretary's attention suggestions for reclamation in other parts of the county, particularly in the very poor district of Bloody Foreland. I would be very glad to know whether these representations have received consideration and whether any developments are pending in these districts.

Another matter with which I want to deal is again typical of our problems, in the congested districts particularly, and that is the distribution of the land of the Stewart-Bam Estate, particularly what is known as the Ards Demesne. I think it is generally recognised in the district that the distribution, as far as it has gone, has been a very fair and reasonable one. But the Parliamentary Secretary will, I am sure, agree with me that it is very undesirable to leave any loose ends, and in that case there are, to my knowledge, a number of people—labourers on the estate, landless men, and uneconomic holders—whose claims are quite as strong as were those of any of the people who have already been accommodated with land.

I know perfectly well that you cannot put a quart into a pint pot, that if you have got only a certain number of acres to distribute you cannot put more than a certain number of people on them, but in this case it happens, that the lands that have been distributed are not the whole of the lands available. I will not trouble the House with details; the Parliamentary Secretary is perfectly well aware of the facts. There is a good deal of anxiety, to put it no further, in the district with regard to this matter. The Parliamentary Secretary has in his control certain lands the ultimate fate of which has not yet been finally decided, and I would like him to give us here a definite assurance that the situation will not be prejudiced, and that these people who are looking for the land, and whose claims are good claims, will not be estopped by anything that the Land Commission either has done or will do until a good deal further consideration has been given to the matter.

Mr. Clery

Deputy Derrig has proposed that this Estimate be referred back. I think the majority of Deputies, if they have the courage of their convictions, will at least admit that it should be referred back, for many reasons. The Parliamentary Secretary made a very convincing case, as far as figures are concerned, when introducing it. I am prepared to admit that at once. We all know that figures can prove anything, and if I were in the position—it would be a happy position—that I had no practical experience of the working of the Land Commission, or if I came from a county in which congestion was very little known, I would have been more or less convinced from the Parliamentary Secretary's case that the Land Commission had done its duty. But anyone who knows the conditions as they exist in the congested counties in the West of Ireland, or in any other part of the country, will certainly realise that the Land Commission has made no appreciable progress since this Estimate was before us last year. As regards the acquisition and division of land or the vesting of holdings no appreciable progress has been made in Mayo since the Estimate was before us last year, and I am anxious, in order that the Land Commission should realise the dissatisfaction that there is, that the majority of Deputies should vote for referring back the Estimate.

I will give a number of instances where, although pressure has been brought to bear on the Land Commission for three or four years or longer, the position has remained unchanged. In 1927, and on several occasions since, questions have been asked in the Dáil and letters have been written to the Land Commission urging that a number of farms in North Mayo be taken over and divided amongst local congests. In practically every case the position, as far as the congests are concerned, still remains the same as it was in 1927. To show how ridiculous this position is I will give an instance. There is a farm of about 200 acres in a very congested district in East Mayo near Charlestown. In 1927 a question was asked here as to when the Land Commission was prepared to acquire that land for distribution. It was again raised last September, and again last week, and on each occasion the Parliamentary Secretary's answer was practically the same—that inquiries were being instituted—but there was a slight advance last week, when he said that now they were aware of the price demanded by the present occupier of the land and the matter was being considered.

There are also three or four small farms in the Bohola district, in East Mayo, I think one of the worst districts so far as congestion and the rundale system is concerned. Questions were raised about this place in 1927, again in 1929, and again last week, and with the exception of the statement that the Land Commission was going to take action at the earliest possible moment to acquire these farms for distribution, very little advance has been made in that case. The same thing applies to farms in other parts of East Mayo. For instance, in the very congested district of Killasser a small farm was acquired by the Land Commission some time ago. On account of the congestion there the people even went so far as to request the Land Commission, if they could not distribute the land amongst the local congests, at least to set it to them in conacre until such time as they had a scheme prepared for its distribution. The Land Commission did not give any effect to that request, the land is still untenanted, and the people in the districts surrounding the farm have to live under the same hard conditions. Were it not for the fact that they are migratory labourers and go to England for a period every year they would not be able to exist at all.

It is the existing state of affairs in these congested districts which the Land Commission have not taken into consideration. If the Land Commission, or the Government, who are mainly responsible, or the Cumann na nGaedheal Party, who are primarily responsible for the policy of the different Departments were interested in the welfare of the people of those districts and understood the harsh conditions under which they have to live, they would deal with this problem of congestion in the West in a more expeditious way. They seem to be satisfied to go on in the old humdrum fashion and they never realise that the congests there, who are always waiting for something to be done for them, have to live under very harsh conditions. There are estates, for instance, in the Gaeltacht area of Mayo and, with the exception of two estates, the Carter and the O'Reilly Estates, that have been acquired recently, nothing else has been done. Our experience is that when the Land Commission acquire an estate they take up a considerable amount of time before they are able to produce a scheme for the vesting of the tenants or, what is more important, produce proposals for the migration of people in congested districts.

There is also in this Gaeltacht area the urgent problem of the islanders of Inniskee. I hold that this should not be treated more or less as a local question. In 1927 an official of the Land Commission visited the islanders and made certain promises to them. I have here a note in the matter which I received from one of the islanders from which I should like to read an extract. The reason that I am going into these particular cases is that I am convinced after the few years I have spent here that the majority of Deputies have very little or no knowledge of the conditions existing in congested areas in the West. There are Deputies from counties here that could be described as ranching counties—in fact, there are rancher Deputies here— and although they may be sympathetic enough with the claims of the people in the congested areas they have little or no knowledge of the conditions as they exist in the West. When we ask that the Land Commission Estimate be referred back, we do so for a very good reason. Therefore I mention cases of this kind so that Deputies from areas where they know nothing of congestion, and where the ordinary farm perhaps might be 200 acres in extent, would realise that the position as far as we in the West are concerned is serious. This letter states:—

"The islanders are willing to give the Land Commission plenty of time to build houses, say, two or three years. What they desire is to have the land striped for them so that they will be able to build little houses during the summer. All we want is to get ashore before next winter. I cannot describe the feelings of the islanders owing to the way their case has been put back. After the disaster of October, 1927, a Mr. Ross of the Fishery Board visited the place and told the people that if they wanted to leave the island the Government would give them land and houses ashore."

The writer goes on to state: "We have no shops, no priest, no doctor, no nothing on the island." When we consider the very harsh winter we have had, with storms and all that, and know that in these islands the people for considerable periods— one time for six weeks—could not go ashore and had to live on whatever they had laid in, and that they had no doctor, priest or nurse on the island, we can understand the anxiety of these people to get ashore, as they were promised by the Land Commission they would be able to do when the land on the O'Reilly estate had been acquired. They are so anxious to be brought ashore before the coming winter that they are prepared to build huts to live in on the mainland and let the Land Commission in the ordinary course of events go ahead with the building of houses or make some arrangement for them to do it. According to what the Parliamentary Secretary stated last week, no advance has been made as far as these islanders are concerned. They are preparing a scheme, of course, but they have been doing that for years as far as some other estates are concerned.

The same thing may be said as to a large number of estates in the Erris area. In fact in the Lackin district the occupier of the Rathfran lands has been negotiating with the Land Commission since 1927 for their sale. Prior to that even the case had been taken up by the Land Commission. The people in that district, who live under the most disgraceful conditions, are still hoping that the Land Commission will do something for them. I could mention at least a dozen cases where owners of land in North Mayo are anxious to dispose of it to the Land Commission. There may be some difficulty about the price, but these people are anxious to get land in other areas and leave the farms they own at present for the relief of congestion. For the past year nothing has been done in that whole district except that negotiations have been carried on by the Land Commission. With the exception of acquiring the O'Reilly and Carton estates nothing in the way of improving land on estates has been carried out, nothing in the way of division of land has been done in that district, which is one of the worst districts in Ireland as far as congestion goes.

In order to emphasise that this is a very live question in Mayo I shall read a resolution passed unanimously by the Mayo County Council on the 22nd March this year. The majority of the members of that County Council have Cumann na nGaedheal views and the Chairman is a member of the Cumann na nGaedheal Party. This is the resolution which they passed:

That this council views with grave concern the delay which has occurred in the provision of land in other counties for the migration of large landholders in Mayo, so that the lands of the latter may become immediately available for the relief of congestion.

That the Government be requested to put into force the compulsory powers vested in them in this connection.

That a copy of this resolution be sent to President Cosgrave, the Minister for Lands and Fisheries, and to each of the County T.D.s.

Surely when the County Council went to the extent of taking up this question and placing their views before President Cosgrave, the Minister for Lands and Fisheries and the T.D.s., they realised that it was a very live question. Prior to this of course when we raised the question about the division of land Cumann na nGaedheal members said that we simply wanted to have a "grouse" against the Government, but when we find the Mayo County Council, on which there is a majority of Cumann na nGaedheal members, and at least three Cumann na nGaedheal T.D.s, passing a resolution of that kind condemning the Land Commission it shows that it is not we alone that are dissatisfied in connection with this question. In fact, whenever the few existing Cumann na nGaedheal branches in Mayo come together once in a while, it is to pass a resolution condemning the Land Commission. If the Parliamentary Secretary does not believe that, he can come with me any time, if we are allowed in, and listen to the resolutions being passed.

There is another serious matter which I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to throw some light upon and that is the question of the Castle Hill estate, Crossmolina. This matter has been raised here on a few occasions. In Castle Hill there are 700 acres in a demesne. The owner of these lands was brought before the Land Commission. Some time ago the case came before the Judicial Commissioner and a decision was given that this Mr. Walsh was entitled to hold the demesne and that the congests in the surrounding parishes were entitled to no portion of the land. But the fact remains that, with the exception of 65 acres, practically all the Castle Hill Demesne was got as a result of evictions carried out in that area from 1846 to 1890. These are comparatively recent events. There were over 55 families evicted on that estate. There was no such thing as a ranch or a farm in that particular district until the individual who was owner at the time evicted all those people and laid out his beautiful demesne. The wall surrounding that demesne to-day is composed, for the most part, of materials from the houses that were knocked down following the eviction of the people. I have a very complete account of that event here, and reading it over I find that at least ten of the people who were evicted—this was as late as 1890—died on the roadside, having been thrown out of their holdings by the predecessor of the present holder. It may be said that this is more or less a question of sentiment. But if it is, what blame can be attached to the descendants of those people who died upon the roadside and who to-day are making strong claims upon the Land Commission that the whole question of the land on the Castle Hill Estate should be re-opened. Their case is that when the present occupier of that land was brought before the Judicial Commissioner it was his case only that was heard. If that is not correct, then it is for the Parliamentary Secretary, or somebody else, to give the House the other point of view. I believe if the case for the congests and the people whose grandfathers were evicted, and the general case of congestion in that particular area, was heard before the Judicial Commissioner, his decision would have been entirely different.

A number of public meetings have been held in the past year in this particular district. These meetings were held by the people in general; they were not political meetings I am glad to say; they were presided over by the local clergy, and resolutions were passed and forwarded to the Land Commission stating the case and asking that the question should be re-opened. Further, a few months ago, a resolution passed by a meeting presided over by the local curate, in the absence of the parish priest, called upon all Teachtaí for the county to take a united stand upon this question and in the event of no satisfaction being given that they should in a body vote for the rejection of the Land Commission Estimate. I trust Deputies from Mayo will remember that fact when this Vote is taken. There are many other things I could say about this particular case but I think, as the resolution and the papers have been forwarded to the Parliamentary Secretary, at least on one occasion, he understands the case and I need not emphasise it any further.

The question of vesting has been mentioned. I think that the question of delay in vesting of holdings is perhaps a greater injustice to the tenant farmers than is the handing over of the land annuities. I have heard of a case where an estate was vested 17 years ago. One particular tenant was not vested at that time but the fault was not his. His holding was quite all right, the boundary was correct and so was everything else. All along he has been demanding that his holding should be vested, but it was only when he refused to pay rent two years ago that the Land Commission took notice of his case. This was in Kiltimagh district and his holding was vested after that. He paid rent for the last 17 years and it is only now he starts to pay the purchase price of his holding. I know a number of estates in Mayo where you have individuals whose neighbours' holdings were vested as far back as 1913 while their lands are not yet vested. They have applied to the Land Commission time and again to have their holdings vested but no heed has been given in these particular cases. That will mean that when their neighbours have paid their annuities and have their holdings free, these people who have not yet been vested will have 20 years further to go to pay off the annuities. The money paid in the meantime has never been considered. It goes into the coffers of the Land Commission.

That matter has never been taken up seriously by the Land Commission. If it were, outstanding cases would have been given some attention some time or other. The slovenliness of the Land Commission is what I object to. If the Land Commission carried on with a little of the go and efficiency of the Congested Districts Board I think we would not have much fault to find with it. Of course, the Parliamentary Secretary can give us figures showing that they have vested so much land since the Congested Districts Board went out of existence. Figures can prove anything, but it is quite evident to me that there is some delay and no anxiety on the part of the Land Commission or the Parliamentary Secretary to right matters. I was reading quite recently the speech made by the Parliamentary Secretary when introducing this Estimate last year. He then said, "If the Land Commission were staffed entirely by temporary forces, without restriction as to numbers, it might be possible to make quicker progress with the completion of its main work, but where a large staff of permanent and experienced officers are involved the State must take notice of the danger of being left with a greater number of such officers on its hands than can be fully provided with work for the full period of their permanent service."

That is a statement that I would like some explanation of. Are we to take it that the work of the Land Commission has been in general hampered because you have a staff of permanent officials and because they are permanent and pensionable you must guarantee that they will have work for the rest of their natural lives? I can draw no other conclusion from the statement of the Parliamentary Secretary, and if I am wrong I shall be glad to be corrected by him. I think that the position is such that it is not fair to a number of the harder worked officials of the Land Commission. I know a number of inspectors are fully occupied and giving their full time. They have no easy time at all, and I think it is rather hard upon them that because another part of the Department happens to be overstaffed you must hamper work in order that those people should be continued in their jobs. I would like some light upon that subject. That seems to be the most reasonable statement as to the easy-going methods of the Land Commission, and since it comes from official sources I take it it must be the true one.

There are a good many other matters which I could go into, but they are simply local questions dealing with estates, delays in vesting, and things of that kind. I will not bother going into them now. The question at the moment is that we are anxious, in the interests of the Land Commission itself and in the interests of the people in the congested districts in particular, that a majority of the members of this House would vote for the amendment to have this Estimate referred back. I am convinced that if numbers of Cumann na nGaedheal Deputies take heed of what has been told them by the the members of their own Cumann na nGaedheal branches and by their own friends that, in the interests of their supporters, they will vote for the amendment to have this Estimate referred back for reconsideration.

Mr. Nally

When the Parliamentary Secretary is replying, I hope he will tell us the cause of the delay in vesting the following estates in South Mayo: The de Clifford, taken over in 1913; the Lucan, taken over in 1913; the Sligo, taken over in 1914; the Lynch Blosse, taken over in 1908; the Lord Dillon, taken over in 1915; the Brabazon, taken over in 1915; the Monica Lynch, taken over in 1915; and the Jordan (Cloonmore), taken over in 1917. Let us take, for example, the case of a tenant on the de Clifford estate whose rent is £10. Since that estate was taken over he has paid, in the intervening 17 years, £170 interest in lieu of rent. If that estate were vested to-morrow the tenant would have to pay an annuity for 68½ years. That would be equal to 85 years' purchase. I think some steps should be taken by this House and by the Parliamentary Secretary to see that the Land Commission is not allowed in future to defraud tenants by holding up the vesting of these estates. That deprives them of the benefits of from ten to fifteen years' purchase of their holdings.

With regard to the acquisition of land in South Mayo, I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will tell us the cause of the delay in taking over certain grazing ranches there which I will mention. There is a grazing ranch held by Messrs. McCarton Brothers at Hollymount containing 800 acres. There is acute congestion in the parishes of Kilcommon and Crossboyne which could be relieved if that ranch was taken over. Then there is the Castlemacgarrett demesne of over 1,600 acres which, if acquired, would enable relief to be given to tenants in possession of uneconomic holdings in the electoral divisions of Ballindine, Kilvine, Caraun and Claremorris. Their valuation is under £5. During the last four or five years the Land Commission have promised that they would acquire that demesne, but so far nothing has been done. In the parish of Islandeady, between Castlebar and Westport, there are over 100 tenants whose valuation is under £5. There is a large grazing ranch in the centre of that parish at Green hill held by a gentleman named Mr. Matthew Fahy. Mr. Fahy states that on several occasions, during the last four or five years, he has offered this farm to the Land Commission either for exchange or purchase, but the Land Commission have not taken over the farm. They have done nothing in connection with it. I would like to know from the Parliamentary Secretary what are the intentions of the Land Commission in respect to this farm. I might mention that the Mayo County Council, at a recent meeting, unanimously passed a resolution asking the Land Commission to acquire this farm of Mr. Fahy's. I suppose the county council got the usual stereotyped reply, stating that the matter would receive attention.

The Land Commission are well aware of the acute congestion that exists in the parishes of Balla, Mayo and Kiltimagh. Within three miles of the parish of Balla 3,000 acres are held in grazing. The lands are known as a grazing ranch. The lands in question are held by Mr. McEllin who has 800 acres, and Mr. James Cowan who has 750 acres. Resolutions, petitions and memorials have been sent to the Land Commission during the last five years asking them to acquire these lands, but so far nothing has been done.

Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary would tell us the number of times that the farms held by Messrs. McEllin and Cowan were inspected during the last three years, and with what result. There is a large farm held by Mrs. Cummins, of Galway, which surrounds the town of Shrule. This is a large grazing ranch. During the last three or four years resolutions and petitions have been sent to the Land Commission asking them to take over this farm so that something might be done for the poor unfortunate town tenants in Shrule and the uneconomic holders in that locality. Their valuation would probably be about £2. Still nothing has been done. Promises have been given, but that is all. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will see that the Land Commission will speed up the acquisition of land. If not, there is one thing that will happen, and that is that local pressure will be brought to bear which will compel them to do it.

Mr. Corry

I rise to support Deputy Derrig's amendment that this Estimate be referred back. Last year we had several flowery promises from the Parliamentary Secretary that he would expedite the vesting of holdings, but these flowery promises are like other promises that we get from the Departments here—they are remarkable only in the breaking of them. I have before me the Parliamentary Secretary's own report dealing with the vesting of holdings in the last twelve months. I have, side by side with it, the statement made by the Parliamentary Secretary himself last year on the vesting of holdings. In his opening statement on this Vote last year he said that 110 holdings were vested under the 1903 and 1909 Acts, that 5,100 purchasers had been dealt with under the estates previously purchased by the Estates Commissioners and the Congested Districts Board. He also stated that under the 1923 and 1927 Acts 3,785 holdings had been vested. That gives a total of 8,995 holdings vested. The total this year, as given in the report before me, is 9,217. In addition to that supposed enormous increase we have a statement made as to the number of holdings in process of acquisition or in process of being vested. I do not know how many changes or extended processes there are in this special Department, but comparing last year with this year we find that there has only been an increase of 222 holdings vested this year. I do not by any means consider that satisfactory. I do not think that the Parliamentary Secretary himself can consider it very satisfactory.

"Steps have also been taken in this connection," according to the Parliamentary Secretary's Report, volume 29, No. 2, page 221, "to strengthen the staff engaged in the office of the Land Commission and special efforts are being made to expedite the rate of vesting during the coming year." And the total increase is 222 holdings. No doubt he has occasion to be proud. There are still about 90,000 holdings waiting to be vested. According to the Parliamentary Secretary's own figures, 79,000 holdings still remained to be vested under the Land Acts of 1923 and 1927. At the present rate of proceeding I do not know how many holdings are waiting to be vested under other Acts. I wish the Parliamentary Secretary would tell us how many holdings like those described by Deputy Nally are waiting to be vested, and regarding which there have been agreements from 1915 to 1918. It would be interesting to know how many of those unfortunate tenants are still waiting to be vested, and if the reason why these unfortunate tenants are paying interest in lieu of rent from 1915 to 1930 is in order that the Minister for Finance might collect his income-tax.

We might be told there is a question of title involved. If that is so and the landlords have not the proper title to the holdings, why should the Land Commission collect the interest in lieu of rent from the tenants? Under what right or title do they collect it? If the landlord has not title to show why should he get the rent? If there is a doubt in the matter why should not the tenant get the benefit of it? Instead of that we have an enormous sum collected year after year as interest in lieu of rent. Fancy the unfortunate tenant having, as Deputy Nally says to pay from 1915 to 1930 interest in lieu of rent for a holding to which perhaps he has more title than anybody in existence. He surely has, for I am certain there is no holding waiting to be vested from 1915 to 1930 if the landlord's title is valid. Why should the tenant pay rent in such a case? I wish I had a landlord with a title that was not valid, for I am sure he would not get one halfpenny from me. That a so-called Government Department turns around and collects rent off those unfortunate tenants is nothing more nor less than a scandal. I have heard the argument put up that it is because of trouble about the validity of title that the delay is caused. If there is any other reason for the delay I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will state it here, and that he will give some reason why these unfortunate tenants should be waiting for the vesting of their holdings from 1915 to 1930.

I think it is an extraordinary thing that Deputy Nally, who has been here from 1922 to 1930, has been voting every year in favour of the Land Commission Vote while this condition of affairs continues to exist in his constituency. I think Deputy Nally should now realise the position, and that until he puts his foot down and shows that he has the courage of his convictions and votes against the Estimate this condition of affairs will continue. I hope he will have the courage of his convictions to-day. I was wondering why this delay was caused until I heard Deputy Derrig's statement to-day and I looked into those figures, and I found that last year £132,714 was handed over to the Minister for Finance of the amount collected from the unfortunate tenants as interest in lieu of rent. I think it is a scandalous and shameful state of affairs that the reason why a Government Department should hold up the vesting of holdings is in order that the Finance Department might derive revenue as a consequence from all the unvested tenants from whom he is collecting, and that the landlords' agents in that Department of his should be kept busy with an interest in the non-vesting of holdings. Then we had the extraordinary statement made by Deputy Derrig of the number of appeals lodged against the prices fixed by the Land Commission Department and the result with regard to them. I have before me a statement made by Deputy Hassett last year when he dealt with this matter very exhaustively. I quote from the Parliamentary Debate Volume 29, page 684. He said:—

"Another thing I have to complain of is the high price which has been given for land by the Land Commission in the last few years—prices out of all proportion to what the future tenants can pay. We have able Land Commission inspectors going down to the country, men with fifteen or twenty years' experience, valuing and inspecting these ranches which the Land Commission is proposing to take over. They inspect every field, dig up the soil, take into consideration everything on that land, its suitability for holdings, and so on, and what do we find? Generally the owner of that land, if he thinks the price does not suit him, comes up here to our friend in the Land Courts and appeals against the price, and our friend in the Land Courts generally allows him twenty per cent. to thirty per cent. in addition to the price which the experienced men who inspected the land had found is the price which the tenants to whom this land is to be distributed can afford to pay."

I gave the Parliamentary Secretary a few instances from my own constituency of the condition of affairs that existed there, and I mentioned the particulars of estates something on the same lines that Deputy Clery did a few minutes ago where unfortunate tenants were thrown out on the roadside to die and the estates were afterwards taken over by the Land Commission at three or four times their actual value and tenants put into them. The best tenants in them are after five years now owing two years' arrears. The result will be that some future Government will have to send down its inspectors again to re-value the estate and fix a rent that the tenants should and can pay, and the taxpayers of the Free State will have to make up the balance whilst the landlords will have gone off with the loot. A Department that acts like the Land Commission has acted is not acting in the interests of the people of this country, and a Department that acts in that way should not have any Vote passed for it in this House. In respect of 200 appeals lodged before the famous Judicial Commissioner the price fixed by the Land Commission——

An Ceann Comhairle

Has the Parliamentary Secretary any responsibility for this Commissioner?

Mr. Corry

The Land Commission apparently accepted the increase of rent which proves their responsibility.

An Ceann Comhairle

Oh, no.

Mr. Corry

If after the appeal and after the increased rent being put on the Land Commission took over the holding the responsibility rests with them.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Parliamentary Secretary has not responsibility for the decisions of the Judicial Commissioner as such.

Mr. Corry

I am not saying that he has any responsibility for the decisions of the Judicial Commissioner.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy is actually criticising the decision of the Commissioner.

Mr. Corry

What I am pointing out is that the decision was given after the inspector had gone down and valued the estate.

An Ceann Comhairle

Let us be clear about this. In no sense is the Parliamentary Secretary responsible for the decision of the Judicial Commissioner. Is not that the position?

Mr. Roddy

Yes.

Mr. Little

May I point out to you that in subhead A—Salaries—the name of the Judicial Commissioner is mentioned? It is true that no salary is attached to his position, but that is owing to peculiar circumstances. It is because he is getting a pension. He is actually on this Vote.

An Ceann Comhairle

No. The salary of the Judicial Commissioner is a charge on the Central Fund.

Mr. Roddy

The Judicial Commissioner is paid out of the Central Fund. The Judicial Commissioner is a High Court judge and as such cannot be criticised in this House.

Mr. Little

There is a difficulty. If the particular Judicial Commissioner were not getting his pension and was getting no salary in respect of this job, if he were a Judicial Commissioner being paid in the ordinary way, then his salary would appear, for the office actually is under the Land Commission.

An Ceann Comhairle

The very words "Judicial Commissioner" would appear to indicate the existence of a person whose salary is on the Central Fund and he acts in a judicial capacity. The intention of the statute creating him and the result of his salary not being here on the Central Fund is that he has the status of a High Court judge and his decisions are not open to criticism in this House in this fashion. There is a method of indicting a judge, but this is not the particular fashion.

Mr. Little

The only point is his name should not appear at all. In analogous cases in other Votes the names of the judges are not mentioned. His name should not be here.

An Ceann Comhairle

His name is not here.

Mr. Little

His office is here.

Mr. Corry

I do not want to say a word about this prince of masons, and I am not criticising him; he is a sore subject.

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy Corry cannot be disorderly either in a bad tempered or a good tempered way. He cannot work off his particular type of abuse in any way.

Mr. Corry

I am not criticising the decision of the Judicial Commissioner. I am criticising the Department which, after the price of these lands has been increased by £66,000, took over these lands from the gentleman who was going off with the loot and divided them up amongst the unfortunate tenants, and makes them pay £66,000 more than in the judgment of the Land Commission inspectors they should pay. The Land Commission, after sending down their inspectors to value these lands, paid £66,000 more for the lands than their inspectors valued them at. I think that is a greater indictment than the indictment of any judicial commissioner. I think the Land Commission Department which works on those lines are actually creating another land trouble in this country. That is what it will amount to, another land problem to be solved in order that some body of gentlemen might walk off with £66,000 more than the true value of the land. I think the Department that is carrying on in that way does not deserve the confidence or the vote of this House. As I stated, we had hoped that some hastening would be made during the last twelve months in the vesting of holdings. I now realise that any further appeal to the Land Commission Department is hopeless. I realise that those unfortunate tenants that the Land Commission has are to be kept for the next twenty years paying interest in lieu of rent. They are going to be kept hanging up between heaven and earth, so to speak, for the next twenty years without any single reduction to which they are actually and legally entitled being given to them. Those tenants are entitled to the ten per cent. reduction. This House, in its wisdom or otherwise, passed an Act compelling them to purchase, and this House has its remedy. This House can turn down this Vote to-day and can compel that Department to do its duty if it wishes.

I hope Deputy Nally will have the courage of his convictions seeing the hopelessness of his case. Deputy Nally has come in here from 1922 to 1930 and has voted every year in favour of this Vote. Still he comes up in 1930 and states that a large number of estates in his constituency have been dragged out from 1915, some of them paying interest in lieu of rent. I think it is Deputy Nally's bounden duty to vote in favour of this Estimate being referred back. I hope he will have the courage of his convictions and that those Deputies who spoke here last year, Deputy Hassett, Deputy Nolan and others, who attacked the Land Commission and who have had no reason since to make one statement in favour of that body will vote against the Department's Estimate. I know they cannot make a statement in favour of it to-day and I think it is their duty to vote in favour of this Vote being referred back. I think it is the particular duty of the Farmers' Party in this House who at least are supposed to represent the farmers here, to vote in favour of Deputy Derrig's amendment that this Vote be referred back.

Deputy Heffernan in his speech last year made some extraordinary statement. I do not intend to follow them up to-day very much but if a representative of the farmers in this House considers that the only land that should be divided up is the land alluded to by Deputy Hugh Law a while ago, the reclaimed bogs, and that the real good land should be kept for the bullock, then God help the farmers he represents. I hope he will for once in this House represent the farming community and that he will for once vote that this Estimate be referred back, that he will do some portion of his duty towards the unfortunate unvested tenants. After all he has his duty in that respect and if this land which he claims was divided up with his assistance in the County Tipperary——

An Ceann Comhairle

He has made no such claim. He has not spoken.

Mr. Corry

Will I quote the Official Debate?

An Ceann Comhairle

Not at all. We must keep to this debate. We are not debating last year's but this year's business.

Mr. Corry

You say there can be no reference to any statement by a Deputy?

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy is unfortunate in that he is speaking before Deputy Heffernan.

Mr. Corry

I am sorry that I am speaking before him. I always come after him if possible.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy cannot come after him and be before him.

Mr. Corry

I do not want to.

An Ceann Comhairle

It is the Parliamentary Secretary for Lands who is before us now, not the Parliamenetary Secretary for Posts and Telegraphs. The Deputy is really. diverting the debate to another channel.

Mr. Corry

If the Ceann Comhairle rules that the Official Report of statements made in this House cannot be quoted in this House I bow to his ruling, but does he make that ruling?

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy can keep to the Land Commission Vote if he chooses.

Mr. Corry

Can I quote statements made by Deputy Heffernan last year on the Land Commission Vote?

An Ceann Comhairle

No.

Mr. Corry

I hope that precedent will be always acted on. It has not been acted upon up to the present. Since Deputy Heffernan is out of the question and I cannot quote him I will give a quotation from Volume 29, from Deputy Hassett.

An Ceann Comhairle

I think not. I think there is enormous scope for debate in this Estimate for £635,981, from sub-head A to sub-head P, and on the Parliamentary Secretary's statement, and it should be sufficient for the Deputy, without going back to other debates and quoting other Deputies' statements.

Mr. Corry

This Land Commission has turned around down in County `Tipperary and given 351 acres of land to a District Justice.

An Ceann Comhairle

When was that done?

Mr. Corry

It was done last year.

An Ceann Comhairle

We are on this Vote now for this year. The Deputy must go forward rather than backwards.

Mr. Corry

We will leave the District Justice in enjoyment of his 351 acres until such time as a national government comes in here and deprives him of it. I hope that Deputy Heffernan will always get his vote. Then we have the question of the untenanted land. We had statements from Deputy Nally here to-day with regard to other large areas, apparently in County Mayo, that are still untenanted, and this House is asked to-day to give a subsidy of £12,000 in order that the grazier to whom that untenanted land is being parcelled out may enjoy it in comfort at a low rent.

If there is a loss of £12,000 each year on this land which is being held by the Land Commission how can they expect the unfortunate tenants to support families on 30 or 40 acres and pay rent and rates for it? This loss of £12,000 bears out my claim to-day that the Land Commission has acquired land at £66,000 over the true value. After all, where is the use of having a Land Commission inspector to value land if he is not able to value it? A Land Commission inspector valued the land and the Land Commission afterwards, apparently in their generosity towards these gentlemen, who in the words of Deputy Clery threw the tenants out on the roadside to die, decided to hand over £66,000 of public money in addition to the sum that their inspectors valued the land for and they come here and look for £12,000 to make up a deficiency in the untenanted land which is remaining in their hands. There is one cure for the Land Commission Department, I hope they will get that cure here to-day. If this House has the courage of its convictions. they will get that cure. If it has not the courage of its convictions I hope that the people will deal with this House some day when they get a chance.

[An Leas-Cheann Comhairle took the Chair.]

Mr. T. Sheehy (West Cork):

I rise to support the Vote on behalf of the Land Commission. I was astonished in following the speech of the last Deputy, that he made no allusion whatsoever to the gallant work that we had accomplished in the past 50 years to bring this land question into its present happy position. I wish to remind him that it was in the eighties the great battle was fought and won that vested the land of Ireland in the occupier. In 1870 the first Land Bill was passed. It was only to give compensation for disturbance. In 1881 that gallant and brave leader Charles Stewart Parnell and his brave lieutenants, Dillon, Davitt and Biggar——

Mr. Corry

On a point of order, I have just been pulled up by the Ceann Comhairle and prevented from dealing with last year. How is Deputy Sheehy going to deal with 1881? Is that in order?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I did not hear him dealing with it.

Mr. Sheehy

I am going to remind Deputy Corry of why we are discussing here to-day the question of land tenure in Ireland. Those leaders that I quoted wrung from an unwilling Parliament on the other side a Land Act that secured the tenant farmers of Ireland in their holdings. This Act of 1881 won the three F's, fixity of tenure, fair rents, and the right to free sale. After that was won it was inevitable that land purchase should follow, and it did follow. The Ashbourne Act came on and it did great work. Then we had the Wyndham Act, and the Act of 1924 put the coping stone on the great work that fixed the Irish tenant farmers in their holdings. Can it be possible that to-day we are going to block by any means the great activities of the Land Commission? I have listened with the most careful attention to the statement of the Parliamentary Secretary. Any fair-minded Deputy would say that he must be overwhelmed with work. I have often seen Deputies on the other side marching in procession to the Land Commission offices. What took them there if the Land Commission was not doing some good on behalf of the State? Why would they go there if it was hopeless for them to wring anything out of the Land Commission or its officers? I myself come up from a congested district, and no one can say that in the last two and a half years I went to the Land Commission whining or demanding anything. I only went there on two occasions when I had legitimate grievances and they received every attention. I would ask Deputies in all solemnity not to be dragging politices into this vital question of sending back the Irish people to the soil. That is the occupation that the Land Commission have at the present time. Deputy Corry, I am sure, was not alive in my time, but he was represented in the great battle that we fought to save the homesteads over the people's heads. That was a time when you could show heroism. It was not by talking, but by standing up against the rack renting landlords, the crowbar brigade, and the battering ram.

I am proud I have lived to the winter of my life to bear testimony to the grand and gallant leaders of the Land League days. I claim them all as friends. I was loyal to them. I stood by their side till the last landlord handed in his gun. What more could an Irishman do. To-day a landlord is as scarce as a white blackbird. He can be met no longer in the 26 Counties or in the 32 Counties. After all that we are here to-day discussing our own work. It may be slow, but I appeal to you, Deputies, as young men, to be broad-minded. Do not be too narrow and do not be attempting to take political advantages simply because the Land Commission are not operating at a more rapid rate. It is your duty to line up behind them and assist them rather than criticise. If you have any solid grievances, place them before the Land Commission, and if they do not give you satisfaction you have every opportunity to bring your grievance forward in this House.

Mr. Maguire

If there is one matter in regard to which we would be justified in asking the support of Deputies for this proposal to refer the Estimate back for reconsideration, it is the complete absence of any effort on the part of the Land Commission to deal with congests in every part of the country, but more particularly in the West of Ireland. I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to state what efforts, if any, the Land Commission have made to deal with the congests in Leitrim. Can he give us the number of people dealt with by the Land Commission under the plan for the relief of congestion? Can he give us the number of persons who were taken from Leitrim, and who were transplanted to other parts of the country? Can he say what number of comparatively large landowners have been taken out of Leitrim and transferred to other parts of the country with the object of leaving farms available for the relief of congestion? The Minister for Agriculture has stated his policy with regard to an economic holding, and he has advocated the creation of 200 acre farms. I do not assume that that will be considered an economic policy from the agricultural standpoint. While we may disagree with the extreme opinion of the Minister for Agriculture as to what constitutes an economic farm, we have to bear in mind the other extreme, the dire state of congestion which is an important factor, and which constitutes a problem that will have to be solved at some time by the Land Commission.

There is no doubt that the problem of congestion is of national importance and, to be dealt with properly, it must be viewed from a wide national aspect. It is more or less on the same lines as the slum problem in the City of Dublin. That was dealt with from a national point of view, and I think the problem of the congests should be similarly tackled by making any charge involved upon the nation as a whole. There is a certain discrepancy between what it costs to erect a decent standard of house and the economic rent that can be secured for that house; there is a discrepancy in the amount involved. In the case of the city slums the State was asked to make good the discrepancy. There should be a somewhat similar procedure in dealing with congestion. There is no use in attempting to deal with the matter from the purely economic standpoint. There is no use in merely acquiring land where it is available, distributing it amongst the tenants, and expecting that such distribution will result in bringing in the amount of money expended on the whole transaction. That is the attitude usually taken up by the Land Commission, and it is because of that they have made no serious attempt to deal with the congest problem in the West. I know that the Land Commission will point out that in these areas there are no ranches, no very extensive farms to be taken over and, therefore, like Pontius Pilate, they immediately wash their hands of any further responsibility. Were the land there the question would long ago be dealt with according to the Land Commission, and they proclaim that it is not their fault that there are no ranches available. That is the attitude of people who have not seriously tackled this question. I am quite satisfied that if there were plenty of ranches there, extensive grazing farms, in all probability there would be no congestion.

The scarcity of land is given as an excuse by the Land Commission, but I say there is ample land available. There is at the present time a slump in the price of land that has no parallel within the last half century. Unless we are to assume that conditions are becoming worse in the agricultural line, we must hope that land has reached the bottom price. There are numbers of farmers who have been endeavouring to sell their land for years and they cannot get a purchaser. Now is the time for the Land Commission to take over farms at the current prices and thus facilitate the farmers who are anxious to sell. They could then convert the land, which is the only land available, for the purpose of relieving congestion.

I know it will be said that if the Land Commission purchase the land at the current price, any overhead charges due by way of annuities will have to be made up in the price for the tenant when the lands are subdivided. That price will be prohibitive. That is what I had in mind when I mentioned that this matter would have to be dealt with from the national standpoint. It is a national question, and it will have to be solved by the nation taking its share of responsibility. I think it is the duty of the nation to deal with the slum conditions in the farming community. The Land Commission have on hands numbers of farms in the congested areas and in other parts of the country that they have been offering for sale for years. In many cases annuities have accumulated through no fault on the part of the owner. The Land Commission have been put to the expense of advertising these farms and paying agents, and the result of the whole thing is that no buyer comes forward. The Land Commission point to that as an undesirable state of affairs. They hold that land should be a commercial asset, negotiable, and should be made bear its due responsibilities. In the ordinary way the Land Commission would be met with no opposition when offering a farm for sale, but at the present time, because underneath it is felt there is a large measure of injustice, opposition exists. The methods of the Land Commission might very well be compared with the methods of the gombeen man or the moneylenders; they could be compared to the methods of men who have tricky and shady ways in all their dealings.

Take the case of farms advertised by the Land Commission for sale because of the owners falling into arrears. The Land Commission are prepared to accept any offer that will meet the amount of arrears due. They leave out the fact that the owner has purchased the farm a number of years back and has paid his annuities, thereby redeeming a certain portion of the charge which the Land Commission has against the land. If these people, through no fault of their own, find themselves embarrassed and in such a position that they cannot pay their land annuities, I ask is it just that the Land Commission should sell them out and sell out these men's entire interest for the balance of the debt? Would it not be more just for the Land Commission to pay the owner of the land the redemption value of what he had paid off in that farm in the shape of annuities and give him some reasonable compensation? In that way the Land Commission will acquire a just and reasonable control over the land and there will be no objection to their selling that land for the relief of congests in the congested districts. These are lines that are available, practical and advisable, and this is the view they should have before them. They have the means to carry out these things if they want to. Along these lines they can at least show their sincerity in an attempt to deal in some way with the problem of congestion in the West of Ireland.

The carrying out of schemes of this sort or making any departure means a large expenditure of money. The Land Commission cannot make the charge that in any way they have been cribbed in the matter of finance for any needed expenditure. I have heard no Party in this House ever condemn the Land Commission for excessive expenditure where that money has been spent in any reasonable way. I know cases where condemnation has been levied against them and where the expenditure they carried out was not justifiable. That condemnation was justifiable. That condemnation was only in cases where the Land Commission had used public moneys for purposes other than in the public interest—where they have used money for Party purposes. In such cases the Land Commission has been condemned. The Land Commission has only to come forward to this House and make application to carry out the necessary work of the relief of this congestion along the lines that I suggest are workable, or on any other lines that they consider advisable and I am sure this House will put no difficulties in the way of granting them the amount of money that will be needed to bring about, to some extent, an improvement in the conditions of these people.

There has been a good deal of discussion here to-day on the question of the delay investing the land. That is the trouble all over the country. It is a matter on which we have heard fair criticism from all sides of this House. With almost everything connected with Land Commission work we have heard what is rather fair criticism. But especially so in this matter of vesting. It is a pity that greater speed has not been used in vesting those lands and saving the farmers of the country that very excessive charge resulting from the system of interest in lieu of rent. I think, too, that the Land Commission should endeavour to keep their promises to the people and in that respect I must complain that many promises made by the Land Commission on some estates in my locality have been promises that have never been honoured. It is true that these promises were made prior to the Big War. As a result of the Big War I know that certain promises and certain services were cut off by the Land Commission.

At that time the Land Commission regarded the cutting off of these services and the postponement of the carrying out of these promises as temporary. At any rate promises were made to tenants on various estates on Leitrim as to the improvement of their holdings and these promises have not been kept by the Land Commission. In consequence of that there is still, in my opinion, a debt due to these people by the Land Commission. They made promises to these tenants and they have not yet carried them out. The conditions then existing according to the Land Commission justified advances to these tenants for improvements. These promises, as I have said already, have not been kept. The Land Commission in that matter cannot be relieved of what they considered was their duty at the time. There are a number of people in the County Leitrim, and in one estate in particular, who can produce positive evidence of promises of money made by the Land Commission towards improvements to be carried out to their holdings. These promises where made by the Land Commission inspectors. I consider these promises should be redeemed by the Land Commission. At the time there were difficulties which prevented the Land Commission carrying out these full schemes of work.

I am also aware that when land is being distributed there are in most cases complaints that unfair methods are being used. I am fully aware of the difficulties in most parts of the country in some of the congested areas about the division of any land that is available there, and, at the same time, to divide it so as to give satisfaction to the community generally. I say that because the demand for land is so much in excess of what is available that it is quite beyond human nature almost to give satisfaction. For that reason I am very slow to make charges in the matter, but I do know after investigation, that in some cases there has been very unfair discrimination and the work of distribution has not been in comformity with what would be the national viewpoint on these matters. It has been generally held, and, I am convinced, with justification, that perhaps the Minister responsible and the Parliamentary Secretary ought to be sympathised with in that connection, inasmuch as most of the official work done by the Department is in the hands of officials who are very unfavourable, as they represent a type of landlordism and represent tyranny of the worst sort. Unfortunately, I am afraid that those are the forces that are making the Land Commission to-day so very unpopular with the community generally.

Mr. T.J. O'Connell

There are some matters arising out of this Vote on which I would like to say a few words. There is, first, the question of the Gaeltacht Housing Act. Deputy Derrig asked for information on the matter, and I, too, would like to have some information as to the progress that is being made, if indeed any progress is being made, in putting this Gaeltacht Housing Act into operation. We know that there were hundreds, possibly thousands, of applicants for grants under the Gaeltacht Housing Act. After a considerable time forms of application were issued. After a considerable time, too, these forms of application were filled. It is a little difficult to fill them, as they were all issued in Irish. These forms have been sent to the Land Commission. I think most of them where sent about February and March. Since that time, so far as we know, nothing has been done. I learned on inquiry that four inspectors were being appointed, or, in fact, were about to be appointed, to examine these claims. I should like to say on that matter, that in my opinion four inspectors are not at all sufficient to deal with the work that is to be done. It will take four men a very long time indeed before they are in a position to make any grants. I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary how soon he expects the grants will be available for the building of houses under the Gaeltacht scheme. When the Bill was going through the Houses we all anticipated that at least some of the work would be done this summer, but as things appear now, it would seem that the chance of the money being available for building operations this summer is very small indeed. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will give us some indication of the progress that is being made, and tell us how soon applicants can expect their claims to be examined, in what order they will be examined, what districts will be taken first, what type of applicant will first be considered, and how soon he expects money to be made available under the scheme.

Deputy Clery, I think, referred to the cases of the non-vesting of tenants whose holdings were taken over in some cases so far back as 1914 and 1915. Like Deputy Clery, I know some of these cases, and I cannot understand what is the cause of the delay. I know one particular case, and I have been endeavouring since 1926 or 1927 to induce the Land Commission to settle up a few tenants on a particular estate, and to vest their holdings. After some considerable time and a good deal of investigation on the part of the Department and their inspectors, they prepared a scheme and vested two of the tenants, but there are still three or four tenants in the same position as that in which they were in 1913. I think that the matter will be brought to a head very soon, because one or two tenants, in despair, refused to pay further annuities in the hope that that will be one of the weapons that will bring the Land Commission to a sense of responsibility and get them to act. Generally, that has the effect of getting the Land Commission to take notice of a tenant when he refuses to pay rent any longer. In regard to the particular type of case about which I should like to have a statement from the Parliamentary Secretary, there are many holders who, for one reason or another, have allowed their arrears of annuities to accumulate. Decrees have been got against them, a seizure of their stock has been made, and for all practical purposes, the land is derelict. They cannot set the land because, if stock is put upon it, it will be liable to seizure.

I do not know what, if any, arrangement the Land Commission makes in such cases to allow the land to be used, or whether it is their policy or practice to leave a farm derelict and make it so that the tenant, not being able to use the land himself, can take no steps to put in a crop or to stock it. I have been asked by more than one person what is the policy and practice of the Land Commission in regard to this particular type of case, because unfortunately there are quite a number of these cases all over the country. It is not good for the country as a whole, just as it is not good for the tenant, that these farms should be left derelict and unproductive. I do not know whether it is a fact that the Land Commission by their regulations do that, whether their regulations have that effect, but a statement from the Parliamentary Secretary will have the effect of clarifying the position.

I agree with Deputy Clery that if one were to judge by figures alone, as quoted by the Parliamentary Secretary, one would get the impression that very great progress indeed was being made, but certainly that does not square with one's own personal experience. I would bear out what Deputy Clery has said in that respect, and especially what Deputy Nally has said in regard to the list of estates which he quoted, in what might be termed his annual speech on the Land Commission. Like Deputy Corry, I hope that Deputy Nally will mark his displeasure with the Land Commission over its delays in dealing with those estates in his constituency by taking the one consistent action which is open to him, namely, voting for this Estimate to be referred back. I have, however, my doubts on that point.

I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to give some indication as to how what I might call the outside work of the Land Commission keeps pace with the inside work, whether there is any clogging from one side to the other, whether the officials inside are able to keep pace with the work done by the outside staff, or vice versa, or whether there is complete co-ordination between the two. One hears statements from one side or the other that at one time the outside staff cannot go ahead because the indoor staff is unable to keep pace with them, while a contrary opinion is often expressed on the other side. We would like to have some light on that aspect of the Land Commission's activities. Deputy Derrig referred to the good work done by the Land Commission in regard to cases in Carlow where the land was taken over by co-operative committees in 1920, in the Sinn Fein days. He said that they had carried out the work there to the general satisfaction of all concerned, and he gave them credit for the work they had done. I regret, however, to say that my experience in regard to one particular case does not coincide with that of Deputy Derrig.

As every effort has been exhausted to induce the Land Commission to revise the work they have done in this particular case to which I wish to refer, I feel there is no option left to me but to bring the matter before the Dáil. The Parliamentary Secretary is well acquainted with the case to which I refer, because I have brought it to his notice more than once. It is on the border of my constituency, and to me and a great many others the action of the Land Commission appears to have been rather extraordinary. It occurred in the case of the McDonnell estate at Headford. Very briefly I will recite the facts. This estate, which comprised practically all the town of Headford and 600 acres of demesne land in the neighbourhood, was purchased in 1920 by a society called the Killursa Co-operative Farming Society. There were about thirty members, about a third of the tenants, all of them shopkeepers and traders in the town, and some of them had large farms. Several of them were not tenants on the estate. The land and houses in the town were valued for about £12,000, and the Land Bank advanced a sum of about that amount. The members subscribed a certain amount, but the amount they subscribed, in proportion to the value of the land, appears to me to have been ridiculously small—only £750. Thirteen tenants became guarantors for the balance of the necessary deposit—namely, one-fourth.

In 1922 several of the houses in the town were sold to tenants, houses of a total value of £4,500 and in some cases—and this is particularly to be noted in view of what happened afterwards—the purchase price was as high as 17 years' purchase. The purchasers felt that it was to their advantage to buy the houses, firstly, in order to help to provide the sum necessary to be lodged in connection with the estate, and secondly, they felt that they would be compensated for the high price they were paying by the fact that they would get divisions of land later on. The Land Commission took over this estate in 1925. They paid £10,691 to the Land Bank, and although house property of the value of £4,500 and other assets had been disposed of, including some valuable timber, the mortgage had been reduced only by £2,500 up to 1925.

It would appear from the information at my disposal and from all the particulars available, that the Land Commission did not, as it was bound to do and as one would expect it to have done, make any proper investigation whatever into the constitution and working of the Killursa Land Society either then or subsequently. There have been all kinds of allegations as to irregularities, want of compliance with statutory regulations, irregular audits or no audits whatever. All these have been alleged——

Mr. Roddy

But never substantiated.

Mr. O'Connell

And substantiated. There is no evidence that the Land Commission investigated them.

Mr. Roddy

There is.

Mr. O'Connell

In any case there is evidence that the rules of the Society were not complied with. There is evidence that their accounts were not audited for four years. There is evidence that they were audited and that the auditor signed them with reservations. There was that evidence in any case. The question of the division of the estate came up and in 1926 a memorial was sent to the Land Commission asking that their inspectors should visit the estate and take over the division of the land themselves. I dare say that was done because of the dissatisfaction that existed in regard to the general working of the Society. It appears that the Land Commission Inspector visited the place at the time, and he gave something in the way of a verbal promise to the tenants that the Land Commission would take over the division of the estate. There is, however, a more definite statement than that, because at that time I was asked to interest myself in the matter, and I wrote to the Land Commission. That was in January, 1927, and I got this reply from the Land Commission:

Department of Lands and Agriculture, Dublin.

8/1/'27.

A Chara,—In reply to your letter of the 6th instant, with enclosure, regarding lands purchased by Killursa Co-operative Farming Society at Headford, I have to inform you that these lands, having been purchased by this Society, through the assistance of the National Land Bank, have become vested in the Land Commission under the provisions of the Land Act, 1923. Several representations have been made here and to the Land Commission regarding the security deposit and the division of the lands. The provisions of the Land Act, 1923, with reference to security deposits are to be amended and extended by the provisions of the Land Bill at present before the Dáil in a preliminary stage, and when these provisions will have been enacted the deposit of this Society will be dealt with as shall be provided.

Here is the important part of it:

As to the division of the lands, it was open to the Society, had they then thought fit, to have made division of the lands before vesting in the Land Commission. Probably such division was not feasible, but now that the lands are vested in the Land Commission, no division can be made except by the Land Commission, and no member of the Society nor any other person has power or authority to make a division of the land. Representations may be submitted, or schemes proposed, and the Land Commission will consider them, but will not be bound to adopt any schemes or allotments not framed by themselves.

That letter was addressed to me from the Department of Lands and Agriculture in January, 1927. Despite that very definite statement the Land Commission asked the Society to draw up a scheme. I will just read a short paragraph from a letter from one of the people concerned, stating what did happen. He said:—

The Committee thereupon (after being directed to draw up a scheme) convened after two hours' notice, a meeting of the shareholders or depositors and about eight or ten of the other tenants, at which their solicitor's managing clerk read out a long document giving Mr. H. P. McClory, a Galway engineer, certain powers in regard to the preparation of a map, etc. This document was signed by all present, but none of the signatories outside a few members of the Committee can say definitely what Mr. McClory's powers actually were to be. This plan was sent to the Land Commission, and subsequently two of their inspectors visited the estate. The only local investigation made by these inspectors was to receive a small deputation. Very extensive alterations were made in Mr. McClory's original plan as a result. These alterations were made entirely at the expense of the tenants, other than recognised members of the Society, who by paying large sums for their dwelling-houses, had enabled the Society to stave off early collapse.

As a result the division was made in this form: 24 members of the Society got 428 acres, 29 non-shareholders got 120 acres, 7 congests from an adjoining estate got 30 acres each and there was a grazing division for cows from the town of 30 or 40 acres. In that way the whole 600 acres were disposed of. That scheme of division excited very grave dissatisfaction—so much so that fifty tenants headed by the local clergy, sent a memorial to the Land Commission in February, 1929. I do not want to read this memorial. It is a lengthy one and it sets out in great detail the objections which the local tenants had to the scheme of division which had been accepted by the Land Commission, although it was stated in the letter addressed to me that no division could be made except by the Land Commission themselves. The Land Commission would not, I feel certain, be responsible for the scheme of division which was eventually made and which has now been sanctioned by them, if they had divided the land themselves. I do not believe any official of the Land Commission would be responsible for the kind of scheme that was eventually drawn up.

Just to show the opinion that was held in the locality I will read resolutions that were passed at a Cumann na nGaedheal meeting in the neighbourhood some time in March and published in the local papers. They are as follows:—

That this general meeting of the Headford Branch of Cumann na. nGaedheal sympathise with and fully support the claims of the tenants who have addressed a memorial to the Minister for Lands relative to the allotment of holdings in the Headford demesne estate on the 12th February.

That we emphatically repudiate the claim of the committee of the Killursa Co-operative Farming Society, who do not represent one-third of the tenants, to be the sole authority in regard to the distribution of holdings.

That we regard the scheme of allotment sponsored by them as an attempt to frustrate the whole purpose of the Land Act of 1923 and a gross betrayal of the general body of tenants.

That approval of such a scheme, if persevered in by the Land Commission, will result in seriously discrediting the Government and be a source of danger to the public peace.

There is undoubtedly a feeling in that district that the Land Commission have been guilty of grave dereliction of duty in the matter because as things have turned out, large shopkeepers in the town of Headford, many of whom have big farms already, have succeeded in getting big divisions of this farm, while others who had at least an equal claim have been put off with three, four or five acres of indifferent land. I do not believe that the Land Commission, if they had the division of the farm, would have dreamt of making such an inequitable division as has been made. The attitude of the Land Commission is set out in letters from them. It is summed up in this way:

As the Society were the real owners of the lands and as there had been no default in payment of the purchase annuity, the Land Commission did not wish to interfere with the Society in their scheme for distribution of the lands, nor had they any power to do so, provided the Land Commission were satisfied that the prices placed on the divisions were fair, and that the proposed repurchasers were solvent persons, able to work their plots and pay the purchase annuities.

The part I dispute is where they say they have no power to interfere. The tenants got legal advice from an eminent lawyer, Mr. Lavery, K.C., who gave quite a contrary opinion as to the power of the Land Commission in these matters. It would be very strange indeed if the Land Commission, which is paying out a large amount of public money, could have no say whatever if the simple condition that there was a fair price put on the land were carried out— that in other words it did not matter who got the land, whether they were deserving of it or not, they would have no voice whatsoever, and would not insist on having a voice in the division of it, in these circumstances. I think that is an attitude that cannot be maintained. It cannot be held that the Land Commission have no responsibility. Public money is being expended, and steps should be taken to see that the division was equitable. I certainly think that this is a case where there ought to be further action taken by the Land Commission. I think it is a case they should have interfered in, and that they should have taken over the division of the land. There is now at least a strong claim that those tenants who purchased at what would now seem to be exorbitant prices, should get some consideration.

It may be said that these men put their money into the land and took certain risks, that they have got back any money they put down with five per cent. interest, and are at no loss. I repeat that the Society's affairs did not get the investigation they should have got. Various allegations have been made not only regarding the sale of the timber to which I referred but to the sale at practically a quarter of its value of the tolls and customs of the town of Headford. That took place since the land was vested in the Land Commission. In all its aspects, this appears to me to be eminently a case where there ought to be a very full public investigation of the facts. From the information at my disposal there is very grave discontent, and in the words of the resolution passed at the Cumann na nGaedheal meeting—and they are not revolutionaries—it is a source of danger and a menace to the public peace. While that state of affairs exists I think it is the duty of the Land Commission to hold something in the nature of a public inquiry or investigation into the whole question of the working of this Society. Unless that is done I fear that the prophecy of the local Cumann na nGaedheal branch will be only too true, and that there will be disturbances, owing to the extreme dissatisfaction that exists because of the failure of the Land Commission to do what, in all circumstances, they were bound to do, namely, to see that where public money was being paid there was an equitable distribution of the land.

Mr. Cole

I join with those who complain about the slowness of the Land Commission in vesting lands. There are a couple of estates in County Cavan—the Farnham and the Maxwell estates—in connection with which there is no possible doubt about the landlord's title, and I think that the schedules of these lands will probably be among the first to be lodged in the county, if not in the Twenty-six Counties. I think it is about time that something was done for the tenants on these estates so that they would be relieved of the extra charges which they have to bear. Another question with which I would like to deal is the division of lands, but I will approach it in a different way from the way it has been approached by other Deputies. We have been working at this since 1923, and I think it is about time for some decision to be come to as to what lands are to be divided and what are not.

I am not making a plea for the non-division of land; I would simply like to ascertain what lands are to be divided. Perhaps I might go a little further and divide that request into three heads. I would first of all make (a) those lands which the Land Commission intend to divide; I would make (b) those lands which it is doubtful will be divided or not, and under (c) I would put those lands which will not be divided. If this were done it would relieve the Land Commission of a good deal of trouble. It would relieve their inspectors from going round to lands from year to year and making reports, first of all that they are not suitable for division, then on the next visit that some of them might be divided, and finally that all the land could be divided. It would save a good deal of expense if some division could be made in that way, and it would allow people to deal in land. Take the case of a small farmer who made some money during the war. He may be waiting to see how the country develops, and he might like to buy a farm for one of his sons. But before he does that he has to make certain that the farm he wishes to buy, which is probably part of an estate, will not be taken from him afterwards. I think that this difficulty is responsible for a good deal of our emigration, because if the young men could get a guarantee that they would not be disturbed if they purchased land, I think that a number of them would settle down at home instead of emigrating.

There is another point also with which I would like to deal but which I cannot approach directly because I am afraid of being ruled out of order. I would not try to approach it at all, because it refers to another Department, except that I got a promise from that Department which has not been fulfilled up to the present. Unfortunately the Vote of that Department has been passed, and consequently I want to raise the matter on this Vote. The Land Commission are issuing civil bills against several people that I know who are unable to pay their annuities. The people know that the land is there, but for a great part of the year they never see it; it is covered with water and they have no hope whatever of getting anything out of it. Their crops and their hay are covered, and it is impossible to get at them. I think that the Land Commission should approach the Board of Works to see if something can be done for these people, because it is unreasonable to expect them to pay rent for land which they see for only about three or four months of the year.

Mr. M. O'Reilly

In common with most other Deputies, I want to refer to the question of the vesting of lands. Some time ago I asked the Parliamentary Secretary if he was in a position to estimate roughly the loss that farmers incurred through the delay in vesting land. He told me that he would not do any such thing, and I partly knew he would not, because it would be a very difficult problem. A number of things have to be taken into account in these cases, one of the most important of them being that any sort of fixity of tenure does not exist during that period, and on account of that uncertainty farmers cannot make any attempt to improve their land. It is not likely that men will improve land that does not really belong to them, and the result is that there is increased unemployment and a decrease in the productive capacity of the land. Several reasons have been given to me as to why this vesting is not done, among them being the difficulty of having all the equities properly satisfied. I am not so sure about that, and I am almost forced to suggest that there are other reasons. One of these other reasons would be that in most cases when small holdings are vested in the tenants the income tax ceases. That is one of the reasons that I could suggest, but the reason that is given is that the equities cannot be satisfied. The satisfying of these equities must, in a number of cases, be a very difficult, cumbersome and expensive process, because I could name certain farmers who have been waiting for more than seven years to be vested. If the legal people have been hunting all round the world for seven years and have not found the people who have claims on that land, I think they should be written off and the tenants vested. There are other farms that have been bought out under the 1923 Act, large farms on which a good deal of labour could be employed, the owners of which possess capital, and are willing to develop their land, but they will not make any attempt to develop, improve or drain it as long as this uncertainty exists.

I think, with Deputy Cole, that it would be very advisable if the Land Commission would tell these people at once whether they were going to retain their land or whether they are going to vest them, but to have them hanging in that uncertain position adds a great deal to the discontent that prevails, and I must admit that a great deal of discontent does exist around this question of the division of land. That has been brought about mainly by the great promises that were made some years ago. We were told that the 1923 Land Act was automatic, that it would steam-roll everything, that the difficulties would disappear like snow, and people were led to expect great things. What is really the result after all these promises? In the beginning we had landlords. Because they exacted too high rents they had to appoint others to take their places, and they appointed agents. The agents carried on the same principle; they failed, and then the Government took action.

I think that if a little more common sense is not applied, a little more of an effort made to estimate what exactly are the conditions under which tenants have to work to-day, some other method of collecting these rents will have to be adopted. It is certainly very hard for a tenant, who gets no assistance whatsoever from the Land Commission. Formerly an occasional landlord was perhaps a little kindhearted and gave assistance of some kind, but there is no assistance now. After the second instalment is due proceedings are taken, the State Solicitor gets control of the business. and instead of owing, say, £10, the unfortunate tenant finds that he owes £12 or £13, because costs are added on to cripple, disappoint and discourage him. I should like to know what salary the State Solicitor has, or if he has to depend altogether on what he can knock out of these cases.

Another point to which I would like to refer is the method of dividing up these lands. The Land Commission have a very difficult duty to perform in the collection of rent, and it would be very advisable when they start to divide lands that they would do so in such a way as would give the tenant every facility for paying the rent. After all, that should be done. But what do we find in a number of cases? I can mention estates in County Meath that were divided a couple of years ago, and the method of division was one of the most extraordinary things that I have ever come across. I do not know what the reason for it was, and I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to suggest some reason. This was the case of an estate in which the landlord had provided houses for his workers, which were well built and sanitary, and each had a garden. When the land came to be divided a few of the tenants who had houses and gardens got land near their houses. Some of them did not. One of them got land at least a mile away from his holding. A farm opposite his house was given to a tenant who came from another district and who had to build a house on it. One would imagine that it would be much more equitable, suitable and reasonable that that particular tenant should have got a farm alongside his own house and garden. What is the result? His garden is too small to keep a cow, and if he attempts to keep one it has to travel a distance of one mile every morning and one mile back in the evening, and in the summer time it has to travel four miles per day.

The next point is that these are small farms and that no profit can be got out of them except by tillage. How is this man to carry on tillage? If he starts to carry manure with the aid of a donkey to that land which is a mile away when will he have fourteen acres, or seven acres, or even one acre tilled? It is most unreasonable. The other man who came from outside and built a new house is engaged altogether in the rearing of pure-bred fowl and naturally it was his wish to be separated from others who had got fowl. The fact is that they put him alongside other houses and he has the greatest difficulty and has to go to a good deal of expense to keep his fowl separated from those of his neighbours.

Another case I came across is that of an uneconomic holder with one and a half acres. His house may be thatched, but it is a good house. I take it that that man is legally an uneconomic holder and that the intention under the Land Act is that he should get a farm of land at some future time. What happened in that case? A farm of land at the back of his house was given to another tenant and the boundary fence runs so close to the back of the house that he has to trespass in order to thatch it. That is a senseless proceeding. It may look very well on paper, but it is not business.

The next question I want to refer to is that of bogs. There are two or three very large bogs in my constituency and turf production brings in a great deal of money in districts where there are large bogs, so that there is no unemployment and no poverty. We know that the value placed on the bogs of this country is something like £5,000,000 per year. It is stated that in some districts these bogs are to be divided up amongst different holders. I think that is unfair. Where there is a big bog it should be held and a warden appointed for the benefit of the poor of the locality. Timber has been used up to a very large extent and in some districts there is a sort of famine in timber. Coal is out of the question for these people and, as I say, a great deal of employment is given by turf cutting. I believe that the Land Commission should retain these bogs for the benefit of the poor in these particular localities.

Another matter I want to refer to is that of roads made through estates, principally under the 1903 Land Act. This may be outside the province of the Land Commission, but it is more or less connected with their duties. In most cases these roads join two main roads. These roads were made through what are known as ranch lands. A few houses were built on these lands, but in the majority of cases no houses have since been built on them. The roads, which cost a good deal, and for which, I dare say, the tenants are still paying, are derelict. No attempt is made to repair them. They are all-important, and if we ever turn to tillage it is still more important that we should make an effort to keep them in repair. The county council will not take them on except they are put into a perfect state of repair. The tenants on the estates cannot be got to agree to put them repair. I admit that this is a problem, but the Land Commission should consider the question and see if some solution cannot be found for it, because it is a calamity and a national loss to see these roads gradually falling into disrepair. Some of them are almost beyond repair. If tillage becomes more general, as it must in time on these small farms, these roads will be absolutely indispensable. Cattle can travel over most of these roads but agricultural produce requires better roads for transport.

Deputy Derrig referred to the question of mineral rights. The Minister for Industry and Commerce has promised to introduce a Bill to regularise the position in regard to minerals. I have had a good many inquiries on this point, but there does not seem to be any definite arrangement made up to the present beyond the promise given. I am not an authority on minerals, but people who presume to be authorities, and who do know something about minerals, seem most anxious to get certain facilities or certain rights for the purpose of discovering if certain lands contain any minerals. Steps should be taken as soon as possible to deal with this matter, because these people must have some ground for believing that a definite supply of minerals is to be found. Even if the minerals are not found, people of the neighbourhood would have the advantage of the employment given.

I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will tell us something definite about the question of vesting, which is causing a lot of agitation and uneasiness. As I pointed out, other things are involved in it, such as the question of credit. Farmers are afraid to attempt any new projects until they are certain that the land will be in their possession.

Mr. T. O'Reilly

I am not at all satisfied that this Department is doing all that it could do or one-half of what it should have done in the vesting of land, in the improving and making of roads to turbary, in the proper protection of land from floods by repairing breaches in embankments when they occurred, and in other cases by the deepening of rivers. In my part of the country, the vesting of land is going on very slowly. I know cases where land was purchased 19 years ago and still remains unvested. That does not show very much sign of progress. There are also cases of people who are paying in annuities for bogs, but who cannot go to those bogs or make use of them because there are no roads to them. It should be the duty of the Land Commission to see that these roads are made for the poor people who pay rent for the bogs. As to the flooding of land, there are some instances down my way. I know a case where a breach was made in an embankment in October, 1927, that is two and a half years ago, and a farm consisting of 44 Irish acres of land had 30 of these acres flooded. The tide comes in upon them and they are under the sea. The lady who owns that land is supposed to pay an annuity of £57 for the remaining 14 Irish acres available for agricultural purposes. I think it is a shame that this breach in that particular embankment was not made up, and the land saved from being flooded. It is not fair to this woman who is the owner, and to other poor people to be asked to take upon themselves the burden of seeing that the farms are not ruined because of these floods.

There is also the case of the small rivers. Where an expenditure of £100 or £150 would deepen them and save the country round about from being flooded. I know the case of one particular river——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Is that not a matter for the Board of Works?

Mr. O'Reilly

No.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I cannot see anything in the Estimate in relation to it. The question of the drainage of rivers is one for the Board of Works.

Mr. O'Reilly

I think the Land Commission should do it. But at any rate I shall pass from it. I know that the Land Commission did, in a case within my own knowledge, repair embankments.

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Lands and Fisheries (Mr. Roddy)

The position with regard to embankments is a very peculiar one. I could not deal with it by way of question and answer. However, I shall deal with it in my reply in the particular case mentioned. I imagine that it is the owner who is responsible for the upkeep of the embankment.

Mr. O'Reilly

Will this lady and other people have to bear the loss?

Mr. Roddy

The breach is entirely due to their own neglect.

Mr. O'Reilly

Now, with regard to the Gaeltacht Housing Act, I went to the trouble to make out the number of electoral divisions to which this Act applies. I find that it applies to 658 electoral divisions. Out of that number there are 120 reserved for special treatment that are supposed to get three-fifths of the grants. Three-fifths of £60,000 would be £36,000, leaving £24,000 available for the remaining electoral divisions. If you take 120 from 658 you get 538, and if you divide £24,000 by 538 divisions you will get, on the average for each electoral division, the handsome sum of £44 12s. 2d. That would not go far towards the solution of the housing problem in the Gaeltacht when there is only £44 on an average for each of the remaining electoral divisions. £44 is about one-fourth of the amount supposed to be necessary to build a new house, so that, in other words, for every four electoral divisions there is only as much money available as would build one new house.

I think, although I suppose this is not the time to say it, that the amount available should be multiplied by four, considering that in the last five years over one-and-a-half millions of money was voted in grants to people who could themselves build houses and did build houses.

Mr. Roddy

The Land Commission did not give them that.

Mr. O'Reilly

I am only just alluding to it. There was no notice given in the local Press——

Mr. Roddy

I am surprised at the Deputy.

Mr. O'Reilly

—as to how people were to avail of that Act, and where they were to apply. As a matter of fact, I had to write to fourteen parish priests asking them to announce from the altar how people who wished to avail of the Act should set about doing so. I think that should be the duty of the Department and not mine.

Then there are cases of farmers, portions of whose land has been taken from them by the sea, and I think it is a great injustice to those people that they should be charged the full rent. I know the case of a couple of farmers who have had each about three acres of land taken away by the sea. They have written to the Department, but could get no satisfaction. I think the rents should be reduced in such circumstances. These people should not be paying rent for what they have not got. I should like to know what the Parliamentary Secretary will have to say when he comes to make his reply upon this matter as well as upon the bog roads and the making up of embankments in which breaches have been made by the sea.

Mr. Kent

I rise to support this amendment that this huge Estimate should be referred back for reconsideration. In doing so I consider that there should be huge savings effected in the Department of the Land Commission. When I look through the Estimates I find under sub-head A—"Salaries, Wages and Allowances"—the salaries for the Commissioners amount to £5,200, with bonuses of £700. I consider that a Commissioner who is paid £1,500 a year has quite a sufficient salary without adding to it a bonus. In the Secretariat and Registry Branch I find the cost is £7,796, and that there is a bonus of £2,110. Under Establishment, including stationery, messengers, etc., there is a bonus of £3,940 on salaries of £10,221. In the Accountant's Branch there is a bonus of £5,600 on a total for salaries of £17,709.

In the case of the collection branch the bonuses are £16,736 out of a total of £46,630. In the case of the purchase and the resales branch the bonus amounts to £15,300. Going through the Estimate, one finds that there is a total sum of nearly £50,000 a year given by way of bonus to highly-paid officials in the Land Commission. That is an enormous sum to be giving by way of bonus to highly-paid officials when we consider the present economic state of the country and the deplorable position in which farmers find themselves. To pay their rents and rates the farmers of the country are largely dependent on what they can make from the harvest. In the case of last year's harvest there was practically no market for two-thirds of the grain that was offered for sale. They were compelled to sell their oats at the very low price that was offered. Those who purchased the oats from them could find no market for it, with the result that for the coming harvest there will be no market at all. The price of butter has dropped so much that it scarcely pays for the labour that has to be employed to milk the cows. All that the creameries are offering is threepence per gallon for the milk. I think that it is about time that in every branch of the Government service economy and retrenchment were carried out.

The Dáil, I think, would be establishing a good precedent if it referred back this Estimate and insisted on doing away with the payment of bonus to these highly-paid officials in the Land Commission. I think that the officials in that Department should move more cautiously and wisely when negotiating for the purchase of untenanted land in the future. A few years ago they sent Commissioners of the landlord type all over the country who gave the landlords the price they asked for their untenanted land. The result of that has been that the tenants who have been put in possession of these lands are to-day unable to pay their annuities or their rates. They are unable to pay what they owe to the shopkeepers or to give a living to their families. At the present time the farmers would want their land free of rent and rates in order that they might be enabled to give a decent living to their families and pay a decent wage to the men working for them. For that reason, I ask every farmer-Deputy to vote for this amendment.

If they do I believe that a huge sum of money can be saved in the Land Commission Department and I hope that the same thing will follow in the case of other Departments. There is no doubt but that the cost of maintaining these highly paid officials in Government Departments has helped largely to reduce the farming community to their present state. If something is not done soon to relieve the present situation, the farmers of this country will soon become a bankrupt and down-and-out people.

Mr. Fogarty

I rise to support the amendment moved by Deputy Derrig. I do so because of the statement made last night by the Parliamentary Secretary with regard to the great work which he claimed is being done by the Land Commission. I have brought to the notice of the Land Commission the condition of affairs that exist with regard to a number of estates in the County Tipperary. Except in very few cases, I have got no reply in connection with them. I want to refer now to the estate of Captain Charles Moore. This is known as the Lattin estate. Negotiations in connection with it have been going on during the last three years. Mr. Nicko J. Green holds the estate in his own right. This estate is grazed by the cattle of another rancher who holds extensive tracts of land all over the south. In order to escape seizure of his cattle for bank debts, he had them removed from the lands during the night. In the village of Lattin there are from eighteen to twenty families. These people have neither space for a cow nor grass for a goat. Some of them have to go near three miles for milk. The small farmers around there have to take meadowing two and three miles away. I would like to know from the Parliamentary Secretary what steps the Land Commission propose to take to have these lands broken up and divided amongst the uneconomic holders and landless men of the district.

Mr. Roddy

I think I told the Deputy quite recently.

Mr. Fogarty

Nothing has yet been done. Then there is the Philip estate. This estate consists of 600 acres. It was taken over by the Land Commission. They have set the grass of it for the last two years. There are ten families in this estate and they have to pay from £3 to £4 an acre for conacre. If the estate were divided up amongst them they would only have to pay the rent and rates. It seems to me that the policy of the Land Commission is to take every half-penny from these poor people before the land is divided up and given to them. I would also like to know what steps the Parliamentary Secretary is taking with regard to the Armitage estate in North Tipperary. I wrote to the Land Commission on two or three occassions with regard to that estate. I would like to read for the House the following memorial which has been addressed to the Land Commission in connection with the estate of the late Mr. W. Bagwell Purefoy. The memorial is in the following terms:

We, the undersigned, uneconomic holders in the immediate vicinity of, and formerly tenants on the above estate, desire to bring under your notice the fact that two outside farms on the estate, aggregating 104 acres 1 rood and 29 perches, S.M., in area, are being offered for sale by auction in Tipperary town on Saturday, May 31st, and as this land is urgently needed to relieve much local congestion, we appeal to the I.L.C. to get immediately into touch with the owners for the purpose of acquiring this land for division. Within a mile of the estate there are upwards of forty uneconomic holders, and withing a mile of these farms there are thirty small holdings varying in valuation from £2 10s. to £19, and averaging about £10. On the next leaf we append the names, acreage and valuation, as a proof of the intense congestion.

All the undersigned are hard working and industrious. Their lands are overstocked, many going two or even three miles for conacre, grazing and meadowing. All are prepared to pay a reasonable rent for additional land, and we are confident that the lands can be acquired by the Irish Land Commission at such a price as to leave the rent an economic one. The applicants pay their annuities and rates regularly.

Some of those lands were cleared within the last century, and in many cases the descendants of the evicted tenants are the present applicants. The applicants are in a position to provide any additional stock that may be necessary if their holdings be extended, and some are prepared to exchange so as to facilitate the work of the Irish Land Commission.

We would, therefore, respectfully request you to get into communication with the owners without delay and to give directions to your local inspectors to deal with the matter as one of special urgency.

I would like to know what steps the Parliamentary Secretary proposes to take in connection with this place which is going to be sold by auction. We are told by some of the Government spokesmen that we have turned the corner. They also tell us that the policy of the Government has been a pronounced success. I do not think the farmers of the country can have any use for generalities of that kind when they see their capital, if they have any, vanishing year by year, and when they see their bank overdrafts expanding in alarming proportions. Farmers find that while the prices they are getting for their cattle and crops are not more than the 1914 prices, there has been an enormous increase in the price of the things they have to buy. In the case of oats, for instance, the newspapers quote the price at 12/- per barrel. The fact is that oats is not bringing at the present time more than 10/- per barrel, which is a hopelessly uneconomic price. It is time that this aspect of the question was considered seriously. Steps should be taken to give them protection for what they produce side by side with protection for what they consume. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to deal immediately with the estates I have now brought to his notice, and see that they are taken over by the Land Commission and divided up amongst the uneconomic holders and the landless people in the districts mentioned.

[An Ceann Comhairle resumed the Chair.]

Mr. Allen

I think the case made for sending back this Vote is sufficiently strong and would justify the House in passing the amendment. Last evening the Parliamentary Secretary gave us an elaborate array of figures about land taken over and vested by the Land Commission. We know what the process is in regard to vesting. It is something like a surveyor driving along 1,000 miles of road to see if it wanted to be tarred. I happen to know that a provisional list of estates for vesting was published in my county some years ago, but they are no nearer to being vested now than they were then, and I am sure that in five years' time the position will be the same. In March the Parliamentary Secretary told me that 11,216 holdings of tenanted land had been vested, comprising over 427,000 acres, and that there were 2,435,000 acres yet to be vested. At that rate it would take about 50 years to vest all the holdings. The rent unpurchased tenants are paying for land amounts to £1,000,000, and at least one-third of that land is non-judicial. In many cases it is entitled to far more than a 10 per cent. reduction. At the very least £150,000 a year is taken out of the farmers' pockets owing to the inability of the Land Commission to do the work allotted to them under the 1923 Act. An Act was passed in 1923 by this House, and the farmers were led to believe by the then Minister for Lands and Agriculture that all the land would be vested in five years. There is not one-eighth of the land yet vested, and I suppose the vesting will proceed on the Kathleen Mavourneen system—the vesting may not be for years and it may never be vested.

The state of affairs in my county is worse than in many other counties. Up to a month ago only 62 small estates were vested, and in these there were only two or three holdings. There are 243 estates yet to be vested, and there are 86,000 acres of tenanted land not vested. Since I came into the Dáil I have accompanied deputations to the Parliamentary Secretary with other Deputies in connection with the Portsmouth estate, near Enniscorthy. All the tenants on this estate are non-judicial, and as the land is rented as town park they are paying £3 or £4 per acre for it. The Parliamentary Secretary promised that that would be taken out of the order of priority. It has not been vested. It must be an awful ordeal to take anything out of the order of priority. There were also several deputations in connection with the George estate. That estate is beside the sea-coast, and, as the Parliamentary Secretary is aware, the land is under water practically the whole of the twelve months. Owing to the neglect of the drainage system on the estate by the landlord the land is under flood.

The Parliamentary Secretary also promised some months ago that that estate would be taken out of the order of priority, but it has not been taken out of it yet. The tenants on that estate came to me on several occasions and asked would they pay any more rent, and I advised them to pay in the hope that something would be done for them. The next time I will advise them to pay no more rent, for nothing will be done. Then there is the Bryan estate. An inspector from the Land Commission visited the estate and he found several farms under two feet of water, so that he could not get into the houses. That was on 29th June, 1928. In the case of one holding, the man left it and went to Australia, and because his brother stayed in the house—I do not know how he got into it—the Land Commission processed him for the rent of the holding, notwithstanding the fact they were aware the land is under water. The Parliamentary Secretary also promised, two years ago, that estate would be taken out of the order of priority, but I suppose it is still in priority. I also wish to refer to another matter in my constituency with which I am concerned, and that is the drainage of the Inch river. Last year the Land Commission undertook to erect a fence right beside the sea-coast where the river enters the sea, as the silting of the sand blocked the river and flooded the land. Farmers who would benefit by drainage undertook to pay the cost. In June, last year, I think, the work was undertaken by the engineers of the Land Commission. Certain piles were secured for the purpose of putting up this fence. It seems to me the person in charge knew nothing about pile driving, good or bad. They were large piles about 15 or 16 feet long. He got the loan of a pile driver after considerable delay, but no one knew how to work it. The piles were put down two feet when they started to split, and to get out of the difficulty they got a cross-cut saw and sawed them off. They spent £200 or £300 putting up the fence, but the piles were put only two feet into the sand.

Mr. Roddy

The Deputy is trying to be humorous.

Mr. Allen

Not a bit. I wrote to the Parliamentary Secretary four months ago about this. What I am stating is a fact, and the Parliamentary Secretary can find out the truth about it. I do not make statements for the purpose of being humorous. In October, a slight storm swept the whole thing away. That is not the really humorous part of it. It has still to come. About January when the whole wooden structure was swept away the Civic Guards, acting I suppose upon orders, started to raid the houses of farmers about two miles south of this particular place looking for the timber that had been swept out to sea and which they thought would come to land again two miles further south. If they had looked into the matter they would have found out that when the timber was swept out to sea the wind was blowing in the opposite direction, and that would have saved them trouble. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will deal with the Portsmouth and George Estates.

It is time something was done about the flooding of the lands on the George estate. Many other matters under this Vote have been dealt with by other Deputies. In view of the fact that there are two and a half million acres of untenanted land yet to be vested I do not think the House should pass this Vote, but should express dissatisfaction at the way the Land Commission has been carried on and pass Deputy Derrig's motion to refer it back for reconsideration.

Mr. Corkery

The principal case I have to refer to is one I have referred to every year while in this House on this Estimate. Three years ago I referred to the Mount Massey estate, and twelve months afterwards I was informed a portion of this estate was to be taken over for distribution amongst the tenants living on the estate. Two years have passed and we have heard nothing about it since. The Land Commission seem to be very slow in dividing a small portion of this land amongst the tenants who are unemployed, most of them, for nearly nine months in the year. They are badly off and a small portion of land would be useful. It would keep them working for a time and help them to live. They have had to live for two or three years without it. I do not know how long more it will be for the Land Commission to take it into their heads to divide up this portion of land. The Land Commission are very slow when it comes to helping the people, but they have been fairly quick in other ways.

For instance if a farmer sends out his rent a month late it is sent back to him and he is told he must pay through a solicitor, and the solicitor will charge 10/- for sending it on again. It is first sent back and the solicitor must get 10/- to send it on. It is rumoured that some of these State solicitors are making as much as £5,000 a year. I do not know whether they are making it all through working for the Land Commission, but we hear rumours that they are making £5,000 a year and that their job is better than one in the Cabinet. The Land Commission are quick enough when it comes to helping the solicitors, but when it is a case of helping the landless men it takes them years. In the Mount Massey estate there is an agitation going on for over twenty years. I hope 1930 will see the end of it. I would like to say something also about the evicted tenants. Very little, if anything, is being done for the evicted tenants. Though everybody says something about them during election and other times, still they do not seem to get anywhere. I hope some little thing will be done for these people also in the near future.

Mr. Roddy

If land could be acquired in just the same way as you purchase a horse or a cow I have no doubt it would be quite an easy matter to placate Deputies like Deputy Clery, Deputy Nally and other Deputies who are complaining of the slowness of the Land Commission in distributing land. After all Deputies should realise at this stage that land can only be acquired in this country in accordance with the procedure laid down in the Land Code, that the owner has his rights as well as the tenant who is looking for the land, that the equities and the merits of every case have got to be taken into consideration and that, generally speaking, the processes that have to be gone through before land finally passes into the hands of the Land Commission for distribution are rather lengthy and involved. Taking everything into consideration I think that the Land Commission is acquiring land to-day as fast as it is possible for them to acquire it under normal conditions, and I do not think it is likely that the rate at which land is being acquired and distributed at the moment can very well be increased except by a large increase of staff.

During the past year we distributed something like 50,000 acres of land, and the allottees who were placed in possession of that land are in a stronger position, at all events so far as security goes, than the allottees placed in possession of land distributed during the three or four years previous to that because of the fact that the allottees we gave land to during the last year were placed in possession of it on purchase agreements whereas the allottees given land in previous years are in only on temporary agreements. Deputy Derrig referred to the fact that the Land Commission seemed to be proceeding more slowly this year than I gave Deputies to anticipate from my statement in the Dáil last year, and he went on to attribute that to the fact that the staff of the Land Commission was inadequate to deal with the huge amount of work on hands at the moment. I am glad the Deputy has made that statement because he will probably recall that in a discussion on the estimates, I think it was two years ago, he said quite definitely and quite explicitly that he felt then that the Land Commission staff was too large and that it should be reduced to more reasonable proportions.

Mr. Derrig

I think I should make it quite clear that I have no reason to believe that they have not an adequate staff, but in justice to the Land Commission it is no harm to say that they say that themselves. Whether it is true or not I cannot say.

Mr. Roddy

I am glad that the Deputy is in favour of increasing the staff of the Land Commission for the purpose of enabling them to carry on the work of land distribution at an even faster rate.

Mr. Derrig

If necessary.

Mr. Roddy

It is possible for me to answer the Deputy that if the Land Commission increased their staff they could increase the rate of progress in vesting lands and this applies to certain other sections of the Land Commission work as well, but so far as the vesting of land is concerned it is very necessary that you should have a properly trained staff for the purpose of dealing with that particular work. It takes quite a long time to train a staff for that purpose and consequently it would mean that certain men who had experience of that particular work might have to be transferred from the particular duties they are engaged on to the vesting section. This is a purely Departmental matter however and will be arranged departmentally.

The Deputy referred at some length to the fact that in this year's Estimates provision is made for £12,000 to meet a deficiency in income derived from untenanted land. The Deputy will remember that two years ago a Supplementary Estimate was introduced to make good a deficiency extending over a period of years. I think the amount of the deficiency was £25,000, and I think I pointed out quite clearly that the deficiency was only a temporary one, and the amount asked for in this Estimate of £12,000 is only intended to provide for the period between the gale day and the dividend day for the period of two months, from November to January and May to July, and when the untenanted land is vested in the tenants the money will be recouped to the Land Commission that it does not represent a loss and could not under any circumstances be regarded as a loss to the State. I want to make that position quite clear. The whole of the £12,000, however, is not intended to cover the loss in income on the land between the dividend day and the gale day. A very small percentage of it is intended also to cover the losses on the working of these lands during a very short period, the losses in respect to herds' wages, rates, and so on. At the present time it is the policy of the Land Commission to divide the land in the shortest possible time after possession of it has been taken. This loss in respect of untenanted land has been reduced considerably during the past few years, and it is very likely that during the coming years the loss will be still further reduced. However, I want to make it perfectly clear that the loss is only a temporary one, and that on the vesting of these lands the loss will be recouped to the Land Commission.

Mr. Allen

Will this loss be recouped from the tenants when the land is given to them?

Mr. Roddy

When the land is vested.

Mr. Allen

This loss will be recouped from the tenants?

Mr. Roddy

No.

Mr. Allen

Will it have to be paid in addition to the price paid for the land?

Mr. Roddy

It is only a question of adjustment of the accounts, a question of the tenants paying on the 1st November instead of the 1st January.

Mr. Allen

Suppose there are many estates that are on the Land Commission's hands for a year or two?

Mr. Roddy

It represents no loss at all to the tenants, except that the tenants are paying from 1st January and 1st July, and on vesting it will be on the 1st November and 1st May.

Dr. Ryan

That is two months. Will they get credit for it in six or seven years?

Mr. Roddy

Not at all. It does not alter the position as far as the tenants are concerned at all. It means simply changing the date of payment from one date to another. In the meantime the money must be paid by the Land Commission. Deputy Derrig next referred to the Land Bank and Committee cases. I appreciate the tribute he paid to the Land Commission for the manner in which they carried out the distribution of Committee lands in County Carlow. He went on to complain of delay in dealing with the balance of Land Bank and Committee lands. I did state, as a matter of fact, in the Estimates discussion last year, that I hoped to have all the Land Bank cases dealt with before the end of this financial year. It has not been possible for the Land Commission to dispose of all Land Bank cases during the past financial year. There are seven of these still outstanding and it may be some months before these cases are finally disposed of. Above all things, it is very difficult to adjust the finances, of which, in many cases, there are no accurate records available. The accounts, in the majority of cases, were very badly kept by the trustees or members of the Committee who were responsible for the management of them. In some instances it was almost impossible to get information from the solicitors who were acting on behalf of the trustees or committees, and in other cases it was very hard to get information from the members or trustees themselves. For these reasons the Land Commission has experienced exceptional difficulty in dealing with these estates. However, as I stated, it is hoped that during the present financial year that at least all the Land Bank estates will be dissolved and a good proportion of the balance of the Committee cases.

In connection with the Gaeltacht Housing Act, I stated when introducing this Estimate that 9,000 applications had been received so far. Four inspectors have been appointed to carry out the provisions of this Act and to carry out the necessary inspectorial work in the country and are at the present moment engaged in sorting out these applications and selecting what, in their opinion, and in the opinion of the Land Commission, are the most deserving ones. Probably on Monday next inspectors will go to the country to carry out inspection on the spot. I was asked when the grants would be made available. The grants are likely to be available in the course of the next few weeks.

Deputy Derrig referred to the footnote at the end of the Estimate relating to the salary paid to the Economic Geologist. He asked me to explain to him the law relating to mines and minerals. I think if the Deputy will refer to page 27 of the annual report for last year he will find a very clear explanation of the present position of the Land Commission with regard to the acquisition of mining and mineral rights. At the present time, as the Deputy knows, mining and mineral rights are vested in the State, and the position, so far as the Land Commission is concerned, is that until the Oireachtas prescribes the manner in which these mineral rights are to be disposed of, they have no power to deal with them. I understand that at the moment the introduction of a Mines and Minerals Bill is under consideration——

Mr. Derrig

Have the Land Commission any power under Act of Parliament to make borings and all that kind of thing?

Mr. Roddy

Not at the moment, in view of clause 11 of the Constitution, which I think defines the position clearly with regard to mineral rights and mining rights. At all events, the view of the Land Commission is that they have no rights in that respect until their duties with regard to the question of mines and minerals are clearly defined. That can only be done by an Act of the Oireachtas, and, as I stated, such an Act is in contemplation.

Deputy Derrig went on to deal with a reply which I gave to a question of his yesterday referring to the amount of money collected from tenants in respect of payments in lieu of rent. From that he made what appeared to me to be the very extraordinary deduction, that it appeared to be in the interests of the Department of Finance to keep the tenants making payments in lieu of rent as long as possible, because of the fact that the Department collected a certain amount of income tax each year. The position is, as I made it quite clear to the Deputy in my reply, that out of the gross sum paid in lieu of rent to vendors or their agents, the income tax due by them must be deducted before payment is made. If the land had been vested the individuals themselves would naturally pay their proportions to the income tax authorities, but whilst these payments in lieu of rent are being made to the owners, it is the duty of the Land Commission to deduct the amount due in respect of income tax.

That is absolutely no charge whatsoever on the tenants who are making these payments in lieu of rent. Income tax is deducted from the amount due to the vendors or the agents acting on behalf of the owners. The issue of Land Bonds naturally depends on the amount of land we purchase in a particular year. That amount varies to a certain extent each year. It may be that in a particular year a greater area of land is acquired than in other years, and naturally there would then be a greater issue of Land Bonds. The issue depends entirely on the amount of land that the Land Commission can deal with in any one year.

Deputy Law wanted to know what has been the result of the reclamation experiment carried out in the Rosses area in Donegal. The experiment, from the Land Commission point of view, has been a success, and it is contemplated at the moment to carry out similar experiments in other parts of Donegal. Reclamation work is, of course, a very costly business. At the present time we are carrying out several schemes of reclamation in various parts of the country. One very large scheme was carried out in Connemara very recently, and though a rather costly scheme it has been successful. Similar schemes have been carried out in various parts of Mayo. The Mayo schemes are not so costly for the reason that we had not to build houses. The reclamation schemes that are being carried out are more or less in the nature of an experiment, as we are endeavouring to ascertain on what lines it is possible to carry out reclamation work on a larger scale with the minimum of cost and maximum of advantage to the State.

Deputy Clery referred to the resolution received from the Mayo County Council with regard to the delays in carrying out the migration of a number of large farmers from the County Mayo. We realise that there are at the moment a certain number of large farmers in Mayo who are prepared to migrate from that county and who are willing to take land in exchange in Meath, Dublin, Kildare or Westmeath. The difficulty is to acquire land to which these people are willing to migrate. Migration at the moment is held up for the reason that we have no land available for these migrants.

During the past twelve months we have migrated twenty large farmers, and I am glad to say that all these migrants are very pleased with the change, and they are, so far, making good in their new environment. In Mayo the problem is a peculiarly complicated one for the reason that not only is it necessary to migrate large farmers elsewhere, but it is also necessary to carry out migration in the county itself—that is, migration from one portion of the county to another, or migration from one estate to another. The difficulty in Mayo, and to a lesser extent in Galway and to a certain extent in Kerry and Donegal, is that in order to relieve congestion in these counties it is necessary, first, to acquire additional land, and in the second place, it is necessary to do away with the existing rundale lettings on many estates. The difficulty we encounter very frequently in Mayo is the difficulty of getting the tenants to agree to give up their rundale lettings. Deputy Clery referred a short time ago to the fact that there are numbers of tenants on estates bought out fifteen or twenty years ago, and that their holdings are not yet vested. The delay is, in many cases, due to the fact that these tenants are not yet prepared to abandon their rundale lettings for the purpose of enabling the Land Commission to carry out a scheme of rearrangement of their holdings. On at least three estates that I know of at the moment the proceedings are held up and the vesting of these holdings is delayed because the tenants will now allow the Land Commission to carry out a scheme of rearrangement of their holdings. In other cases vesting is delayed because it is necessary for the Land Commission to acquire additional land in order to give the tenants an addition to their holdings and at the same time to carry out some small scheme of rearrangement.

In Mayo the position is peculiarly complicated. While the Land Act of 1929 has undoubtedly given us additional powers in certain respects, I am afraid those powers are not altogether adequate for the purpose of enabling us to carry out rearrangements and re-adjustments on many estates at a reasonably rapid rate.

I have dealt with the difficulties with regard to vesting on many occasions in the course of debates on Estimates, and I do not think it is necessary for me to go into these difficulties again to-day. The Land Act of 1929 was passed through the Dáil last July and, of course, it is yet too soon to experience any great advantage from the operations of that measure. During the present financial year we do expect to experience considerable advantages from the Act. Although the figures which I gave the House last night relating to vesting may not show a very great advance on the previous year, nevertheless a great deal of preliminary work has been done; a great deal more preliminary work leading up to the vesting of land was done last financial year than was done for many years previously. This work, taken in conjunction with the advantages which the Land Commission will enjoy from the 1929 Land Act will result, I anticipate, in a very substantial increase in the figures next year.

I must confess that I could not follow Deputy Maguire at all. He gave me the impression of one who is anxious that the defaulting annuitants should be compensated for leaving their holdings. However, I will not pursue this point, as he is not present. In some cases the Land Commission, when they cannot dispose of these holdings, take over the management of them themselves. They are doing that in very few cases; I do not think there are more than half a dozen altogether. They let the land in grazing until such time as they recoup themselves for the arrears of Land Commission annuities. In a few other cases proceedings are taken by the Land Commission in order to reacquire the lands. At all events very little is done yet in that direction, because we are simply trying to reduce the arrears that accumulated during the last five or six years. Deputy O'Reilly referred to embankments on certain estates in Kerry, and he complained that tenants have to pay annuities to the Land Commission when their lands were flooded. The impression I got from the particulars he mentioned was that there was a direct sale between the owner and the tenant, and the tenant undertook the responsibility for maintaining the embankment.

In the majority of cases the tenants are responsible for the upkeep and maintenance of embankments. It is unfortunate that in many parts of the country the tenants have not recognised their responsibility, with the result that breaches have occurred and portions of their land have been flooded. In other cases there was a certain sum of money deducted from the purchase money. It was invested by the Land Commission, and out of the income derived money is being spent by local trustees on the upkeep of embankments on certain estates. In some cases the money set aside for the purpose of maintaining embankments is entirely inadequate, and, if the embankments are to be properly maintained and strengthened so as to resist the tides, money may have to be made available from some other source for the purpose of supplementing the income from the trustee fund.

Mr. T. O'Reilly

In such a case as the one I mentioned, are the embankments going to be left as they are and the lands allowed to be flooded?

Mr. Roddy

Of course, I do not know the position at the moment. I assume the tenant is responsible in that case for the maintenance of her portion of the embankment, and I assume there are a number of other tenants interested in the maintenance of the embankment as well as the lady you mentioned. It appears to me that she is liable for the upkeep of her particular portion. I would be inclined to think that in that case there was a direct sale between the owner and the tenants, and in such cases the tenants assumed responsibility for the upkeep and maintenance of embankments.

Mr. T. O'Reilly

What about the encroachment of the sea?

Mr. Roddy

There is a Commission investigating this question at the moment. It is a very big question, and until the Commission reports I am afraid I cannot hold out any hope to the Deputy that anything will be done.

Mr. T. O'Reilly

But the tenants have to pay their annuities all the same.

Question put: "That the Estimate be referred back for reconsideration."

The Committee divided: Tá, 53; Níl, 66.

Tá

• Aiken, Frank.
• Allen, Denis.
• Anthony, Richard.
• Blaney, Neal.
• Boland, Patrick.
• Bourke, Daniel.
• Brady, Seán.
• Buckley, Daniel.
• Carney, Frank.
• Carty, Frank.
• Cassidy, Archie J.
• Clancy, Patrick.
• Clery, Michael.
• Colbert, James.
• Colohan, Hugh.
• Cooney, Eamon.
• Corkery, Dan.
• Corish, Richard.
• Corry, Martin John.
• Crowley, Fred. Hugh.
• Crowley, Tadhg.
• Davin, William.
• Derrig, Thomas.
• Doyle, Edward.
• Fahy, Frank.
• Flinn, Hugo.
• Fogarty, Andrew.
• Gorry, Patrick J.
• Goulding, John.
• Hayes, Seán.
• Houlihan, Patrick.
• Jordan, Stephen.
• Kent, William R.
• Killilea, Mark.
• Kilroy, Michael.
• Lemass, Seán F.
• Little, Patrick John.
• Maguire, Ben.
• McEllistrim, Thomas.
• Moore, Séamus.
• Morrissey, Daniel.
• Mullins, Thomas.
• O'Connell, Thomas J.
• O'Kelly, Seán T.
• O'Reilly, Matthew.
• O'Reilly, Thomas.
• Powell, Thomas P.
• Ryan, James.
• Sexton, Martin.
• Sheehy, Timothy (Tipp.)
• Tubridy, John.
• Walsh, Richard.
• Ward, Francis C.

Níl

• Aird, William P.
• Alton, Ernest Henry.
• Beckett, James Walter.
• Bennett, George Cecil.
• Blythe, Ernest
• Bourke, Séamus A.
• Brodrick, Seán.
• Byrne, John Joseph.
• Carey, Edmund.
• Cole, John James.
• Collins-O'Driscoll, Mrs. Margt.
• Conlon, Martin.
• Crowley, James.
• Daly, John.
• Davis, Michael.
• De Loughrey, Peter.
• Doherty, Eugene.
• Dolan, James N.
• Duggan, Edmund John.
• Dwyer, James.
• Egan, Barry M.
• McFadden, Michael Og.
• McGilligan, Patrick.
• Mongan, Joseph W.
• Mulcahy, Richard.
• Murphy, James E.
• O'Connell, Richard.
• O'Connor, Bartholomew.
• O'Donovan, Timothy Joseph.
• O'Higgins, Thomas.
• O'Leary, Daniel.
• O'Mahony, Dermot Gun.
• O'Reilly, John J.
• Esmonde, Osmond Thos. Grattan.
• Fitzgerald, Desmond.
• Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
• Good, John.
• Gorey, Denis J.
• Haslett, Alexander.
• Hassett, John J.
• Heffernan, Michael R.
• Hennessy, Thomas.
• Hennigan, John.
• Henry, Mark.
• Hogan, Patrick (Galway).
• Holohan, Richard.
• Jordan, Michael.
• Kelly, Patrick Michael.
• Keogh, Myles.
• Law, Hugh Alexander.
• Leonard, Patrick.
• Lynch, Finian.
• Mathews, Arthur Patrick.
• McDonogh, Martin.
• O'Sullivan, Gearóid.
• O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
• Reynolds, Patrick.
• Rice, Vincent.
• Roddy, Martin.
• Sheehy, Timothy (West Cork).
• Thrift, William Edward.
• Tierney, Michael.
• Vaughan, Daniel.
• White, Vincent Joseph.
• Wolfe, George.
• Wolfe, Jasper Travers.

Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Allen and Killilea; Níl: Deputy Duggan.

Question put and declared lost.

Main question put and agreed to.