In Committee on Finance. - Vote 55—Land Commission. – Dáil Éireann (6th Dáil) – Thursday, 14 May 1931

In Committee on Finance. - Vote 55—Land Commission.

The President

I move:

Go ndeontar suim ná raghaidh thar £383,901 chun slánuithe na suime is gá chun íoctha an Mhuirir a thiocfaidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh lá de Mhárta, 1932, chun Tuarastail agus Costaisí Oifig Choimisiún Talmhan na hEireann (44 agus 45 Vict., c. 49, a. 46, agus c. 71, a. 4; 48 agus 49 Vict., c. 73, a. 17, 18 agus 20; 53 agus 54 Vict., c. 49, a. 2; 54 agus 55 Vict., c. 48; 3 Edw. 7, c. 37; 7 Edw. 7, c. 38 agus c. 56; 9 Edw. 7, c. 42; Uimh. 27 agus Uimh. 42 de 1923, Uimh. 25 de 1925, Uimh. 11 de 1926, Uimh. 19 de 1927, agus 31 agus 41 de 1929).

That a sum not exceeding £383,901 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,1932, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Irish Land Commission (44 and 45 Vict., c. 49, s. 46, and c. 71, s. 4; 48 and 49 Vict., c. 73, ss. 17, 18 and 20; 53 and 54 Vict., c. 49, s. 2; 54 and 55 Vict., c. 48; 3 Edw. 7, c. 37; 7 Edw. 7, c. 38 and c. 56; 9 Edw. 7, c. 42; Nos. 27 and 42 of 1923, 25 of 1925, 11 of 1926, 19 of 1927, and 31 and 41 of 1929).

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

The Land Commission Estimate for the financial year 1931-32 shows a net increase of £8,920 on the preceding year, after allowance has been made for the transfer of the administration of operations under the Housing (Gaeltacht) Act, 1929, from the Land Commission to the Gaeltacht Services Branch of the Department of Fisheries as from the 1st April, 1931. It was at first considered that these operations could be best administered as a special branch of the Land Commission, as the housing work under the Act is analogous to that on the late Congested Districts Board's estates and has to be co-ordinated therewith. Experience has shown, however, that the operations under the Housing (Gaeltacht) Act fall more naturally under the administration of Gaeltacht Services. The total amount included in respect of these operations in last year's Estimate for the Land Commission was £66,000, leaving £569,981 for the Land Commission proper, as against £578,901 for the coming year. As copies of the detailed Estimate are in the hands of Deputies, and as I have fully explained the scope of the various sub-heads on previous occasions I need not go separately into the figures of the particular minor increases or decreases, and I propose to confine my comments to the more important items.

Under Sub-head A—Salaries, Wages and Allowances—there is an increase of £5,963. This is mainly due to an increase in the inspectorate staff, which is being reorganised in a manner which will, I hope, enable the Land Commission to deal more expeditiously with the purchase and re-sale of both tenanted and untenanted land. In consonance with the increase in the number of inspectors, the number of Land Commissioners (other than the Judicial Commissioner) has been increased from two to four, but, on the other hand, the post of Assistant Commissioner has been abolished and one of the Commissioners acts also as chief inspector, while another acts as Secretary of the Land Commission. There has also been a slight increase in the staff of the Purchase and Resales Branch, sufficient to enable the Headquarters staff to handle the work thrown up by the increased inspectorate. I may mention, in this connection, that during the last few months the Land Commission staff had to administer a considerable portion of the grant for the relief of unemployment and distress and, for this purpose, officers had to be detached for a period from ordinary land purchase work.

Under Sub-head B, there is a decrease of £1,000 in travelling expenses, notwithstanding the increase in the number of inspectors, owing to improved arrangements for stationing inspectors locally.

Under Sub-head H—Payments under Section 11, sub-section (7) of the Land Act, 1923—there is an increase of £7,400, mainly due to the normal increase expected in the amount of Land Bonds to be advanced in respect of the State contribution to the standard price of tenanted land. This Estimate is without reference to the recent enactment of the Land Bill, 1931. Following on the greatly increased issue of Land Bonds during the coming year provided for in that measure, the Estimate under this sub-head must be correspondingly increased, but I cannot budget for this, and the increased amount necessary under this sub-head must be the subject of a supplementary estimate later.

Under Sub-head I—Improvement of Estates, etc.—the Estimate is practically the same as last year. This expenditure is regulated for the most part, not altogether, of course, by the distribution of untenanted land acquired by the Land Commission.

Under Sub-head J—Advances to meet deficiency of income from untenanted land purchased under the Land Acts, 1923-9—there is an increase of £2,000, having regard to the increase in the amount of advances for the purchase of untenanted land. But, on the other hand, there is a decrease of £2,000 under Sub-head X— Payments under Sections 42 and 46 of the Land Act, 1927—consequent on the winding-up of the Land Bank estates and Committee estates.

The Appropriations-in-Aid show an increase of £3,020, which is mainly due to greater receipts from "Excess Annuities."

On the whole Deputies will perceive that the Estimate is very much on the lines of last year, so that there is little need for special comment.

As regards the general work of the Land Commission during the past year, of which a review is expected on an occasion like this, I may say that the standard of progress has been well maintained. But as the Land Commission and all its works have been so exhaustively discussed during the recent debates on the Land Bill, I shall confine myself now to a brief statement of the most important features. As regards the vesting of tenanted land under the Land Acts, 1923-9, 4,625 holdings were vested during the past year, showing a slight increase on the figure for the previous year, and the total of tenanted land vested in the Land Commission under the Land Acts, 1923-9, up to the 31st March last is 15,971 holdings, comprising an area of 578,210 acres and representing a total price of £5,143,148. In view of the provisions of the new Land Act, however, these figures are no criterion of what will be achieved during the coming year, when we expect to deal with all the remaining tenanted land coming under the 1923 Act either by way of putting the tenants on an annuity basis or vesting their holdings in them. The same may be said of the re-sale of holdings on Congested Districts Board estates. On these and on the old Estates Commissioners estates (which are now nearly completed), the Land Commission vested during the past year 3,212 holdings or parcels. The total of these resales vested by the Land Commission since 1923 amounts to nearly 30,000 holdings or parcels comprising 912,000 acres and representing a resale price of £5,305,000. Adding to these vestings the holdings vested by the Land Commission since 1923 in respect of direct sales between landlord and tenant instituted under the Land Acts of 1903 and 1909, and also the vestings under Sections 38 and 39 of the Land Act, 1923, and the vestings of parcels of untenanted land allotted under the 1923-9 Acts, brings the total number of holdings and parcels vested by the Land Commission during the eight years from 1923 to 1931 to over 61,000, comprising 1,977,000 acres and representing a total price of £14,700,000.

As regards the acquisition and division of untenanted land under the Land Acts, 1923-9, a total of approximately 379,000 acres has been acquired by the Land Commission, and offers have been made or the lands gazetted for acquisition in respect of a further area of 139,000 acres, while, in addition, some 232,000 acres have been inspected with a view to their suitability for acquisition. Of the untenanted land actually acquired under the Land Acts, 1923-9, nearly 300,000 acres have been divided among some 15,000 allottees. In addition, the Land Commission have divided, since 1923, some 160,000 acres of untenanted land on estates which had been purchased by the Estates Commissioners and the Congested Districts Board, bringing the total of untenanted land divided since 1923 to approximately 460,000 acres.

The total amount expended by the Land Commission since 1923 on the benefit and improvement of estates acquired under all the Land Acts is approximately £1,547,000, but in addition the Land Commission have expended approximately £428,000 on special improvement works out of funds for the relief of unemployment and distress, bringing the total improvement expenditure by the Land Commission since 1923 to about £1,975,000.

The figures I have given cover the main activities of the Land Commission since its transfer to the Saorstát Government in 1923, and I think Deputies will agree that they amount to an impressive total. During the coming year every effort will be made to cope not only with the tenanted land remaining to be vested under the Land Act, 1923, but also with the holdings on the Congested Districts Board estates which have not yet been resold. At the same time, the work of acquiring and dividing untenanted land for the relief of congestion will not be neglected, and also the allottees of parcels of untenanted land already divided will be put on an annuity basis.

As regards the working of the new Land Act, I may say that arrangements have been made that no less than 70,000 holdings will be included in the lists to be published, fixing the 1st May as the Appointed Day, and the remaining holdings coming under the 1923 Act will be vested as from the 1st November next. Deputies will realise the immense amount of clerical work and calculations that this involves. During the last few months a large proportion of the staff of the Land Commission have been working exclusively on tenanted land estates in order to give immediate effect to the new Act. It was necessary to review the particulars of every holding as furnished by the landlord, to reconcile the conflicting claims of landlords and tenants to rents and compounded arrears of rents to be added to the purchase money, and to calculate to the nearest penny the capital sums payable in Land Bonds to the owners, and the amounts of the annuities by which the tenant purchasers will repay the purchase price of their holdings.

The new Act will not be an easy one to administer. The vesting in the Land Commission of a great number of holdings without the antecedent full checking and investigation of the particulars furnished by owners that has hitherto been deemed necessary for the vesting of any land, will necessarily involve a certain amount of errors and omissions in the lists of vested holdings, the rectification of which will mean a good deal of trouble for the accounting and collection branches of the Land Commission. The case of the Congested Districts Board estates, where many of the holdings are held on an involved rundale system, will be especially difficult. But all this was taken into account in the drafting of the Act, and the special provisions included for the rectification of errors subsequent to vesting will help to smooth the difficulties. The Land Commission staff are working vigorously and wholeheartedly to make the Act a complete success, and I have no doubt that the promise I have already made will be amply fulfilled.

Mr. Derrig

I move, "That this Estimate be referred back for reconsideration." In moving that amendment I have not, of course, in mind the question of the vesting of land which now seems to be in a fair way towards satisfactory completion. I congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary on his statement that 70,000 holdings will be vested on 1st May, and that he hopes that the remainder will be completed on 1st November. So far as vesting is concerned, it is obvious that that is a very big step forward. and no one is more pleased than I that the Parliamentary Secretary has given such a good account of his Department in this matter. In regard to the Estimate, I do not think that he has attempted to justify the increase under the heading "Salaries, Wages and Allowances" of nearly £6,000. I notice that the number of Commissioners has been increased from four to five, but though the office of Assistant Commissioner has been abolished, it does not seem to have resulted in any economy to the State because, whereas last year we paid £5,200 for these Commissioners, this year, apart from the Judicial Commissioner, whose remuneration is charged against the Central Fund, we are paying £6,378, an increase of nearly £1,200.

The changes in the inspectorate staff would also seem to demand some explanation. Last year there were fifteen inspectors in Grade IV., apparently the lowest grade, and which has now been abolished. I take it that all the inspectors who were in that grade have been pushed upwards. Instead of fifteen temporary inspectors who were employed last year there are now thirty-eight, so that the total inspectorate which last year comprised sixty-eight has now been increased to ninety-five while the increase in the cost of the inspectorate staff has gone up by £8,400. If the reorganisation of the Land Commission is to take place solely on the basis of promotions and additional remuneration to those concerned, I think it is very questionable whether the changes are going to work out for the benefit of the taxpayer. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary when replying will be able to go into greater detail in explaining why this extra staff was necessary, what work they are going to do that has not been done before by the ordinary staff, and, further, what is the scale of remuneration of these temporary inspectors, and are they paid higher than those who were in Grade IV, the grade which has now been abolished.

In regard to Sub-head K, which deals with payments in respect of Land Bank and Land Committee cases, I understood from the Parliamentary Secretary last year that he hoped that a considerable reduction would be evident in this sub-head. Last year the amount voted in respect of Land Bank cases was £14,000. This year the Parliamentary Secretary anticipated that we would only require £8,000, a reduction of £6,000, but I find that there is only a reduction of £2,000. Last year there were only seven Land Bank cases outstanding. We would be glad to know whether it is hoped to get rid of these cases during the current year. Another matter which seems to require mention is that in connection with appropriations-in-aid where we find that there is an estimated appropriation for costs recovered from delinquent annuitants of £4,000 as against £3,400 last year. Have the Land Commission been able to devise any system of cheapening the legal costs where decrees are got against defaulting annuitants? I understand that some attention has been paid to that matter. It seems a great pity that the present system should be allowed to continue whereby an unfortunate widow can have her cow seized and find afterwards that she owes the Land Commission more than she did before the animal was seized and sold.

The particular matter to which I would like to call the attention of the House in connection with the administrative policy of the Land Commission is that of the division of land. The House knows that we had a very long debate here some three years ago with reference to the Government policy in the Gaeltacht areas, and a White Paper was submitted by the Government embodying their proposals. In reply to the recommendation of the Gaeltacht Commission that all the grass lands of the western counties be broken up and that in the re-settlement of land, especially in the Gaeltacht, none but Irish-speaking families be re-settled and that English-speaking families with claims to land should have their claims satisfied outside the Gaeltacht, the Government stated that the division of land was being expedited to the utmost. On the other hand, they called special attention to the proposals which they were carrying out for the reclamation and local migration in these congested areas. The statement in the White Paper seemed to indicate that the Government had great hopes that this policy of reclamation and local migration would considerably help to solve the problem of acute congestion in those areas. It is stated:

There is at present in progress a large migratory scheme which, when completed, is expected to contribute largely towards the relief of the existing chronic state of congestion amongst the mainly Irish-speaking population in a part of Connemara. This scheme, although of a much more extensive character, is in accordance with settled practice in dealing with migration problems which long experience has proved to be the best way in which such problems can be faced satisfactorily. The area within a line along the coast from Costello to Mannin Bay, with an average breadth of three miles, is inhabited by some 15,000 persons distributed among some 3,000 holdings.

It is further stated that:

As there is no suitable untenanted land within 15 or 20 miles of this district which can be used for relieving the area, it has been decided to acquire, under the compulsory clauses of the 1923 Land Act, about a dozen extensive tenanted holdings in the Maam and Cloosh valleys. The valleys are adjacent to this thickly-populated district, and the area to be acquired is expected to be sufficient to enable the Government to settle from 50 to 70 of these families.

Looking at the Land Commission Report, I find, in my opinion, at any rate, that the reclamation scheme as carried out, while undoubtedly it has been very costly and has probably given a good deal of employment locally, is not calculated to solve the problem of congestion in these areas. I venture to say that, no matter how long the present scheme is in operation and how far it is extended, it will not, in the long run, greatly improve the situation. The amount which is being spent on such schemes is very large. For example, in the Cloosh valley, about which we hear extraordinary accounts from those who reside in the neighbourhood—that snipe, for instance, let alone human beings, cannot live in that area—portion of the land has been reclaimed at a cost of £4,000, and six holdings are being made out of it. In a neighbouring district seven holdings are being made out of the reclaimed land, and that scheme also cost £4,000. That is to say, thirteen holdings are in process of being made, manufactured if you like at a cost of some £8,000 as far as the actual work of reclamation is concerned. That is a cost of some £615 per holding.

If you are going to charge the incoming tenants the full value and make them repay the full expenditure on this reclamation, you will have to make them pay an annuity well over £20, and perhaps £30. You are not, however, at the end of your troubles when you have reclaimed the land which cost £8,000 for thirteen holdings. You have, in addition to that, to provide houses and out-offices. According to the Land Commission Report, in the case of a small migrant who is changed into the reclaimed area, the cost of a house and out-offices may be anything from £350 to £700. It will be seen, therefore, that even if the State does not expect more than half the expenditure on reclamation and the building of houses, etc., to be recoverable, nevertheless a very heavy annuity will have to be fixed on the incoming tenant to enable him to pay off the amount. There is, in addition, I understand, a further expenditure. There is the buying out of the outgoing tenant's interests. These interests have to be paid for. I understand that arrangements have been made to provide the tenants with stock and to give a subsidy for tillage. I have no details of these holdings, but I simply mention them in order to show that the reclamation scheme is very expensive and that, furthermore, the number of people actually going to benefit seems to be small.

While it was anticipated in the White Paper that at least 60 or 70 families would be migrated and would get the benefit of these schemes, it seems that up to the present only something like 20 allottees have been placed on the reclaimed land. I understand some of these have surrendered their holdings, at least in one case, and have gone back to their original congested holdings. It was anticipated that these tenants would be able to live more easily upon these reclaimed holdings than if they were changed outside the Gaeltacht area, to the rich lands in the midlands, for example.

It was said that the conditions would be more favourable, that they would be more accustomed to them and, furthermore, that the annuity which they would have to pay would not be greatly in excess of what they had been paying before. If the Parliamentary Secretary is able to assure the House that all this work is being done, that so much is a State grant as would enable the annuity in these cases to be fixed at £10 or under, then there is a good case that the incoming tenants may be able to pay that annuity; but if the annuity is fixed at a higher figure than £10 I do not see that there is a possibility of its being an economic proposition for the tenant.

There is no information to show what exactly the return to the State is going to be from all this expenditure. I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to state what the total expenditure has been up to the present, the number of tenants which it is expected to benefit, and the amount which he estimates would be eventually recoverable.

The reason I bring this matter before the House is that it was the settled policy of the State before the present régime to make special provision for those congested areas. A special Board was brought into being, and that Board got a certain annual grant-in-aid. The money had not to run the gauntlet of the Estimates, or had not to be discussed and critically examined at the Public Accounts Committee, and so on. It was recognised, as I stated before, that in these areas the British Government had something to make up for, something to atone for, and they gave a substantial annual grant, not alone for the purpose of re-settlement on the land, but for the purpose of providing and establishing ancillary industries which might be suitable in these areas. The position now is that any scheme or any programme that has to be carried into operation in these areas does not seem to be the responsibility of any definite Department. It is only arranged at a conference which meets fortnightly, and which is representative of the Local Government Department, the Fishery Department, the Land Commission, and any other Departments concerned. It seems to me, as has been stated in the Minority Report of the Gaeltacht Commission, that you can never, on such a basis as that —fortnightly conferences of Departmental chiefs—get a programme that would meet the situation as it exists in those areas. Even if you do get a programme you are going to have divided responsibility. You are not going to have that personal supervision and knowledge which are required, and which, in my opinion, can only be got by putting the whole thing in charge of one responsible Department, and, if necessary, creating a special Department to deal with the matter.

The argument against transferring these people out of the Gaeltacht areas is the expense. It was stated in the House by the Minister for Agriculture that it would cost £700 or £800 to migrate a family, but under the present reclamation scheme you are expending £700 or £800 per family. You are probably expending a good deal more, and you have no guarantee in the end that the scheme will be economic. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to show the House whether it will work, whether he is going to stake his reputation that this reclamation scheme is going to solve the situation.

I admit that there is no easy solution for the problem, but, at any rate, I think the old Congested Districts Board was proceeding on very good lines. They stated that their policy was to create the maximum number of economic holdings in these areas. They simply declared that the man over £100 valuation had no right to exist in these areas. They went further and declared that the pasture farm had no right to exist there, no matter what size it was. They also said that the non-residential holding, no matter what its size might be, had no right to exist in these areas.

I would like to know from the Parliamentary Secretary whether he can assure the House, in regard to the land that is about to be vested in the tenants, that no land is going to be vested in these areas in people whose valuation is over £100, that land which is not giving any employment, that is of no benefit to the community in these areas, and which is simply used as pasture, is not going to be vested in fee simple in the tenants at present. I would like him, furthermore, to say in the case of people who have two or more farms, upon one of which, at least, they do not live, they are not going to be allowed to pretend to work them or to continue to hold them while we have hundreds or thousands living under conditions in the same areas which are only comparable to the worst conditions in the slums of Dublin.

I say that in this matter we require a bold policy and an imaginative policy. I will be told that there is not enough of land to go around. The Parliamentary Secretary stated two years ago in this House that there is roughly only one million acres of land available for distribution, of which some 650,000 acres were, at that time, the subject of inquiry. In the congested areas, however, the position is very much worse because all untenanted land seems to have been already divided. In the annual report of the Land Commission for the present year it seems that there are now only 78,000 acres of untenanted land available, which in the words of the report is practically altogether mountain and waste land, and, therefore, is not of great value so far as this question of re-settlement is concerned.

I notice in the valuable appendices to the De-rating Commission Report that there seem to be holdings of high valuation still in the congested areas. One-quarter of the Co. Galway roughly, one-fifth of the Co. Kerry, one-fifth of the Co. Donegal and one-fifth of the Co. Kerry are in farms of over two hundred acres. If the Parliamentary Secretary can show the House that it is necessary that these farms of two hundred acres should exist in these areas, very well. If he can show the House that it is not the policy of the Land Commission to break up these lands and can give reasons why these farms of two hundred acres should be allowed to exist side by side with conditions as he knows them we should be glad to hear his explanations. But, even if he proves to the House that there is insufficient land and even if all these two-hundred-acre farms were taken up—I admit that the valuations of some of them is very small—nevertheless a total which gives almost one million acres is considerable. If the Parliamentary Secretary goes outside the congested areas he will find plenty of land. He will find that in the Co. Kildare something like forty-three per cent. of the land is comprised in holdings of over two hundred acres; in Tipperary about twenty-two and a half per cent.; in Westmeath nearly thirty per cent., and in Meath nearly forty per cent. If we take these four typical ranching counties and put them against the four congested counties that I have referred to, we will find that there are three-quarters of a million acres of land in these four counties in holdings that are over two hundred acres in extent. Will the Parliamentary Secretary state to the House that so long as these two-hundred-acre farms are no longer residential, so long as they are farms that are absentee farms on which the owners do not even reside, and so long as they are farms of over £150 valuation, or grass farms, it is the definite policy of the Land Commission to acquire these lands and distribute them among uneconomic holders and, if necessary, amongst congests in the West of Ireland?

Mr. Roddy

Would the Deputy consider that sound?

Mr. Derrig

If the alternative is to continue with such schemes as we have in respect to reclamation and so on, and if the country is going to be faced with the problem of maintaining a considerable proportion of its population on such schemes, and on temporary relief measures, I do not know how the problem can ever be solved. My opinion is that no decent experiment has been made to do the other thing. Assuming that there is not enough untenanted land to go around, if you look at the area which has been resumed by the Land Commission consider the cases of people who admittedly are not entitled to hold land because they are not giving value to the country while land is required by congests, you will find that the amount of land resumed is very small.

I was extremely surprised when I looked up the figures at the end of the Land Commission report to find that since the Land Commission was taken over by a native Government that up to the 31st March, 1930, only five holdings have been resumed in County Galway, with an acerage of 2,400. In County Clare only three holdings have been resumed with an acreage of something over 1,000 and in the Counties of Mayo, Roscommon and Cork, according to the table, only one holding has been definitely resumed in each County. In table A there is no record of any holdings having been resumed in Sligo, Leitrim, Kerry and Donegal. It seems to me that so long as you have the situation that is described in the appendices to the Report of the De-rating Commission, where there are huge tracts of land varying from one quarter to one half of the area in practically all the counties in the Free State, that that is ample evidence to prove that the Land Commission will have this House and the country behind them in dealing with this matter of solving the problem if they go out and tackle it.

In the County Tipperary, which does not particularly appertain to my present themes, there is an extensive agitation going on for the division of ranch land. That is of particular interest, because those who are trying to get the land there are the people who fought for the country. Although the vast majority of them have now left, those who remain deserve some consideration. Where you have a whole county looking for a livelihood upon the land that was taken from their fathers, and that gradually relapsed into the hands of graziers and ranchers, it is an extraordinary thing that the only policy the Parliamentary Secretary had to adumbrate in connection with that problem is that so long as land is required for fattening purposes, it apparently is not the policy of the Land Commission to take it over. Accordingly you find that only something like 2,000 acres were divided in the County Tipperary in the last year as recorded in the official report of the Land Commission. In the County Kildare, which is well-known as a ranching county, only three hundred acres were divided, although, in all these midland counties, there seems to be, on examination of the question, plenty of opportunity and plenty of room for the Land Commission to carry out a bolder policy than it has been doing.

The Parliamentary Secretary will, during the coming year, if his predictions come true, be in the position that he will have relief from the greater task of vesting land. As he comes from the congested areas himself, he knows the problem. He has had experience within the last five years of this work, and has certainly made great advances. I would ask him to go further and do the work that I think lies nearest to his heart—that is, to concentrate on a strong active policy when conditions are favourable for dividing up ranches, no matter where they may be, whether in the congested areas or outside them. He has a staff that is well versed in the whole question. As I have already mentioned, he has full powers, and I am sure that the House will grant him any finances that are necessary, provided that a policy is put before it and the country which will show that a really serious effort is to be made to deal with the problem and to complete it within a certain number of years.

[An Leas-Cheann Comhairle took the Chair.]

Mr. Shaw

I think perhaps the most notable incident that has occurred in this House for some time was to hear Deputy Derrig, in moving the reduction of this Vote, congratulating Deputy Roddy on the case he just put forward as regards the general policy and work of the Land Commission. This, of course, is a time for stocktaking, but it certainly is refreshing to hear an intelligent Deputy on the other side being broadminded enough to give credit where credit is due. I would like to add my congratulations to the Parliamentary Secretary, because I entirely agree with the remarks that Deputy Derrig made that Deputy Roddy has been a distinct and outstanding success in his position as a Parliamentary Secretary.

I do not intend to go into details with regard to the working of the Land Commission in Westmeath and Longford. I have repeatedly done so and given details of the good work done there, but I would add this: that the Land Commission and the Land Commission officials have given all-round satisfaction there. They have not, of course, pleased everybody. That would be impossible.

Deputy Derrig advocated taking migrants from the West of Ireland and setting them up in the County of Westmeath, and he mentioned that there was a very large acreage available there. I do not agree with him at all in regard to that. There is little enough land there to go round for the people looking for it for a long time past. I remember hearing Deputy Derrig at the by-election in Westmeath-Longford, and he did not advocate that policy. There have been 18,000 acres divided in Westmeath among 700 people. They received on an average 20 acres each. I believe the estates were divided fairly and have given general satisfaction, and so far as I am concerned, anyhow, I am quite pleased with the work of the Land Commission. The division of land is one thing. They have dealt with a huge number of Committee cases and have relieved a very great number of people that were very seriously burdened, and in that way they have done very valuable work. They also spent a considerable amount of money. I do not mean relief money but ordinary money allocated by the Land Commission for the improvement of estates. They have done invaluable work on these 18,000 acres of land and they have given much employment. I shall not go into details and shall not detain the House any longer, but I join with Deputy Derrig in congratulating the Land Commission on its work and I suggest that in all the circumstances the best thing would be to withdraw this motion forthwith.

Mr. T. Murphy

Some time ago I had occasion in this House to say a word in praise of the Land Commission, in regard to the manner in which their improvement works were executed. I regret now, after recent experience, that that statement was entirely premature and that I should not have made it, and if it is necessary to withdraw it I think I had better do so at the outset of my statement. I want to express my very keen disappointment at the manner in which the Land Commission has dealt with portion of the relief grant that passed into their hands some months ago.

The House will remember that shortly before Christmas £300,000 was allocated for the relief of unemployment. A substantial portion of that money passed through the Land Commission and there has been a general demand in the House for a speedy arrangement for the release of that money or a substantial portion of it for the execution of necessary work. I think it was nothing short of a public scandal that three or four months after that money was voted certain works were not initiated. I challenge contradiction of the fact that in some instances works approved of have not yet been started. If there was any advantage of the handing over of a substantial portion of that money to the Land Commission it was in the realisation that the Land Commission could deal with it quickly and consequently get the benefit of the expenditure of that money to the people of the country who needed it.

After repeated visits by inspectors— I am speaking now with particular reference to my own constituency—and after repeated representations were made to the Department, a certain number of works were approved of, and I shall give, at a later period in this statement, an account of the method by which this money was allocated in that particular constituency. I again say that it was a keen disappointment and an altogether unjustifiable delay on the part of the Land Commission to allow three or four months and, without any exaggeration, three or four months at the hardest time of the year, to pass without releasing that money.

The time immediately after Christmas would be a very difficult time for the people waiting for their opportunity to earn portion of that money. And it was a very unsatisfactory position for disappointed people that they were unable to earn a share of that money at the time when it was very keenly needed. I consider that delay defeated to a great extent the wishes of the House and the decision to make that money available for particular purposes. The wish was expressed, when that matter was being dealt with here, that the Land Commission would not delay the expenditure of the money by having particular points raised about the nature of the holdings on which the money was to be expended, or, to put the matter more clearly, wishes were expressed that the Land Commission might get over, as I have no doubt they could get over, the difficulties that would arise, and did arise in previous years, in connection with the necessary works where certain lands were purchased under certain Acts and where, in fact, vesting had taken place on some estates. Nothing whatever was done in regard to that work so far as I know. The intention of the Land Commission was that certain works of improvement that had been partially carried out in recent years would be completed. There are quite a number of such works in the constituency that I come from that have not been completed, and I complain of the very inadequate amount of money made available for that kind of work in my constituency. I point to the fact that we have, I think, a very important claim upon the Land Commission. The complaint of the Land Commission has been, in some instances that work of that kind that was carried out was allowed to go to waste by reason of the fact that the roads, when they were made, were not maintained afterwards, and became in a short time simply overgrown tracks. In West Cork, at any rate, the local authorities have in practically every instance where the Land Commission made an accommodation road, where useful work of that kind was carried out, taken over that particular work and allocated a certain amount for the maintenance of that particular work afterwards. In other words, they made sure, so far as the powers conferred upon the local authorities go, that the best results would be got for the expenditure. I consider that that was a policy that would entitle a particular county where the local authorities do pursue that policy to special claims upon the Land Commission for the completion of works of that kind.

I point to the fact also, that certain important works, about the merits of which there can be no question—a claim that cannot be advanced all round, even in regard to the constituency I come from—were approved of in some instances some years ago. They were submitted to the Land Commission annually since. They were formally inspected, and forgotten immediately afterwards. I want to ask whether it is considered good policy to incur the expense of having certain proposals examined and reported on more than once, if there is no intention or opportunity or funds to carry out such works. I would like to hear from the Parliamentary Secretary whether it is the intention of the Land Commission, out of the amount allocated for the improvement of Estates, £211,250, for the coming year, to undertake works of that kind. I assume that a considerable amount of work will have to be done by reason of the legislation recently passed in this House, but even where the operation of the recent Land Act will not be concerned, and where there is a strong case for works of this kind, I want to know whether the Parliamentary Secretary will give any indication that it is the policy of the Land Commission to consider, on the merits, works of the particular kind I have mentioned.

There is grave dissatisfaction in certain parts of the country, at the method by which this money was allocated. Having regard to the position in the district I come from, I consider also, that there is some mystery attached to the whole matter. A report was submitted shortly after the allocation of the amount I have referred to in regard to the completion of works, and an examination of proposals generally submitted was made afterwards. Beyond the execution of a comparatively small number of works, nothing of any consequence was done, and even to-day, in the question answered by the Parliamentary Secretary, a confession was made that it was found impossible to provide funds for the execution of any work of a number that was necessary in one of the islands off West Cork. I do not want to repeat what I have often said about conditions in cases of that kind. They must always be difficult. That needs no argument. They must be extremely difficult in places where much, if not everything, depends on the success of the fishing industry, which is the mainstay of the people on the island. It is not over-stating the case to say, that in an island like Cape Clear, conditions during the past winter were pretty hard. I believe it was gross neglect on the part of the Inspector who was dealing with the district to have failed to consider the claims of people on the island, and of necessity the unhappy position the people of that place were in.

I want to make another complaint about the general policy of the Land Commission. I have personal experience on more than one occasion of the great difficulty in getting replies from the Land Commission in regard to matters submitted to them. One branch is an outstanding exception to that statement. That is the collecting branch. My experience, and I think that of most Deputies, of the collection branch is that the work is expeditiously done and that the administration is generally satisfactory, and one might say sympathetic. That does not obtain in other branches of the Land Commission. I have a distinct recollection of instances where I ultimately gave up hope of getting any decision whatever on matters submitted to them. There were two methods, one by written communication and the other by personal interview. I gather that for some time the method of reaching the Land Commission through personal interview with the officers of that Department is not encouraged. One can see restrictions mounting up fairly steadily in that particular Department and one can sense elsewhere a policy, that seems to be more apparent as time goes on, of discouraging Deputies in this House from interesting themselves in matters affecting their constituents at all.

I hope I am not unfair to the Land Commission when I say that, because I want to be fair on the matter. I have been definitely forced to the conclusion that there is a desire to show that Deputies, by using the method of personal interviews with officers of the Department, need not hope for very satisfactory results. I do not know why that should be so in any Department of State, and I avail of this opportunity of drawing attention to it and of making a request, which I think is a reasonable one, that members of this House who submit matters affecting their constituents to the Land Commission ought to have speedy replies and ought to be put in a position of being able to transmit to their constituents decisions of the Land Commission dealing with certain matters within a reasonable time.

Mr. Roddy

Is the Deputy referring to correspondence sent to the Land Commission about relief works?

Mr. Murphy

No. I am referring to correspondence of a general nature. Leaving that matter and dealing with the delay that surrounds the administration of the Land Commission generally, I have in mind at least one instance that would serve to illustrate what I am arguing. I understand, and I do not want to take any advantage of the Land Commission in this matter, that questions affecting the division of land and involving examination of title and other questions of that kind must be slow, and cannot be dealt with in a very short time, but there are limits.

I saw an extremely big and comprehensive file dealing with it. I have been assured on no less than a dozen occasions that the matter would be closed in the next three or four months. I put that case as an instance of the undue delay that is taking place in comparatively small matters, and I complain again—I will return to it on another occasion—about the unfair delay and the disappointment experienced in regard to the allocation of moneys that should have been put in the course of expenditure within a reasonable time. I urge the Parliamentary Secretary to make provision at least for the completion of unfinished works out of the Improvement Vote for the Land Commission during the coming year, and to give us some indication as to whether he is prepared to consider, with a view to execution, certain works that have long ago been reported on by his Department, and the need for the execution of which there is no question about.

Mr. Brennan

I would like to draw the Parliamentary Secretary's attention to a matter which is very important, at least in our county. Under the 1923 Act various estates came under the Land Commission. There was no opportunity given, either to the landlord or the tenant, to make any arrangements regarding drainage, which was in very many cases being carried out by the landlord. Three cases at least have been brought to my notice, and I am sure that there are ten times as many in the county where the landlord was in the habit of having his estate in these particular localities drained every second or third year. In 1923 those lands came under the Land Commission, and since that time no drainage whatever has been done, with the result that in a few of the districts the tenants are badly swamped out at the moment. A clause was inserted in the recent Land Acts which gives the Land Commission the right to recoup themselves out of certain moneys retained by them for the purpose of doing necessary improvements on estates in regard to embankments and, I understand, drainage. I would like that the Parliamentary Secretary would pay particular attention to applications under this heading. These people have been paying exorbitant rents quite long enough, and they have been long enough waiting for the lands to be vested without having further injury inflicted on them through not having the drainage done.

With regard to special works, roads to turbary and all that, under the last unemployment grant a great deal of work was done in that direction, but there will be very grave danger now, I am afraid, if those estates become vested in the Land Commission where they have unfinished work, that they will disclaim all responsibility for carrying out the work. I would like to call the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary to that matter.

With regard to delays I am afraid that, like Deputy Murphy, I cannot compliment the Land Commission that they have successfully carried out their duties in Roscommon. There is one case in particular and that is the Potts Estate in South Roscommon where the landlord and the Land Commission agreed over two years ago on a certain price for the land. Everything was in readiness but the people are still waiting for the land. I had thought the matter was long since settled, but when I made inquiries recently I was told that there were difficulties about boundaries between tenanted and untenanted land. Both the landlord and the tenants realise that there is no such difficulty. That is the position after waiting over 18 months. There are also the estates of Glover, Mapother and Fitzmaurice. All these things are not creditable to the Land Commission. I think these things need to be speeded up, and I would direct the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary to them in the hope that they will be attended to with the least possible delay.

Mr. Clery

Like Deputy Derrig I am glad to know from the Parliamentary Secretary's statement this evening that there is evidently a change of front on the part of the Land Commission. According to the Parliamentary Secretary's statement and as a result of recent legislation in this House they are evidently at last going to tackle, in a serious way, the problem of vesting land. I hope the undertaking given by the Parliamentary Secretary this evening will bear fruition at an early date. After all, it is one of the big problems of this State, and if the Parliamentary Secretary is true to his word and if the matter is tackled in the way he states it will, he will have the sympathy and co-operation of Deputies in every part of the House. Despite the promises of the Parliamentary Secretary and the evident change of front on the part of the Land Commission I still state that it is quite proper for this House to refer back this Vote for reconsideration. Even if we take Deputy Brennan's statement we must agree that things must be pretty bad with the Land Commission when he finds fault with a Government Department. We have a statement now in which he expresses his dissatisfaction with the Land Commission. When that is the case, surely I, who have always been in a position to find fault with them on every occasion cannot be blamed now when I have the chance for saying that I too am dissatisfied with the Land Commission particularly as regards the division of land.

If I take the County Mayo, I can show the House that it is one of the worst as regards congestion. What was said last year can be said this year again, and that is that the result of the Land Commission's work there is practically negligible when you consider the division of land in the whole country. The Land Commission have been particularly slow in dividing estates. It is admitted that this is such a very serious problem and that a large number of congests have been gravely wronged. The sympathy of this House as a whole goes to these people. When we have a body like the Land Commission, having authority to get down and tackle that question during the past six or seven years, and having not alone the authority to do it, but the money to do it, I cannot understand why we still have congestion such as we have. I cannot understand why there are in certain localities grazing ranches still held by the landlord, or even in the hands of the Land Commission without being divided. I cannot understand what hidden hand must be behind the scenes delaying the serious tackling and settling of these problems. Some land has been divided in Mayo all right, but if you compare the number of people who have been placed on the land by the Land Commission, with the thousands of people who are in a very poor condition as congests, you will say that there is no appreciable change made in the county as a whole. It is simply deplorable to think that at the present day you have the rundale system in existence in portions of Mayo. That system is a disgrace to civilisation. You have still co-tenants living there without any boundary, and you have those estates in the hands of the Land Commission for a number of years. You have within a short distance of undivided land, places that may be called land slums. In their neighbourhood you have large tracts of land which have not yet been taken over by the Land Commission.

Some Deputies in this House at times find fault with the graziers and landlords who have succeeded in holding on to their lands, but I think one cannot blame any grazier or landlord in such circumstances, when you have the Land Commission having compulsory powers for a number of years to acquire any land they wish for distribution amongst congests. The Land Commission has not seriously tackled this question of acquiring the land, and planting the people on it. It is for that reason that I wish that this Vote would be referred back. In parts of the County Mayo, you have, as the Parliamentary Secretary knows, especially in the eastern and northern areas, parishes where you have a very disgraceful rundale system existing. The question of these congests with large farms in the locality has been raised again and again by different Deputies here. The only reply we can get from the Land Commission was that the question would receive attention. I do not like that phrase "receive attention." I do not like to be pressing the Land Commission again and again, but if they give the slightest indication that the attention which they promised to give this matter would be given to it on some definite day I would give them some decent chance. It should be realised here, that people are living in rundale holdings down the country, in small patches of land existing by tilling small farms part of the year, and going to England and Scotland every year to earn a few pounds in order to carry them through the winter season.

It should be realised that these people have been very patient with the Land Commission, and very patient with the Government. Their condition should be really changed.

Deputy Davis was quite enthusiastic over the progress that has been made in County Mayo, but I must say that I do not feel quite the same enthusiasm. I think that much more progress could have been made and Deputy Davis should not be satisfied to stop now. We have in Mayo a very considerable portion of the Gaeltacht. The Gaeltacht problem was gone into in great detail some years ago by the Land Commission, but little progress has been made because the people there are in the same unfortunate position as they were then; conditions have not altered much. Two or three years ago there were very definite promises made to the dwellers on Inniskea Island. I know that a certain amount of delay was bound to take place in migrating the islanders to the mainland. I would like to see them brought to the mainland at the earliest opportunity and I am sure the Land Commission could do that if they tackled the question seriously. They really ought to carry out the promise they made two years ago.

The Parliamentary Secretary has talked about estate improvements. I must say that the position in regard to estate improvements does not meet with my satisfaction. One of the greatest wrongs the Land Commission did two years ago was to reduce the Vote for estate improvements by £150,000. Last year a grant was given for a few hundred thousand pounds and that was talked about as if it were a great boon to the people. That grant was given for the relief of distress. The fact of the matter is the Government were only giving back to the people the money they took from them two years ago when they reduced the amount that used to be given annually for the improvement of estates.

The amount for estate improvement this year is not at all sufficient. The improvement of estates is one of the most important features of Land Commission work and it should be adequately tackled. You have the small farmers with no accommodation roads and you have mountain streams and streams through low-lying lands continually flooded adjoining areas and destroying the crops of the farmers. These are matters with which the Land Commission should deal. If they have not sufficient money at their disposal to tackle these questions of accommodation roads and small drainage schemes I am sure the majority of Deputies would be quite prepared to agree to any Vote which would enable the Land Commission to proceed with that work. Estate improvement is the one important thing, next to the division of land, that will aid congests.

With regard to the Relief Vote I, like Deputy Murphy and other Deputies, have every fault to find with the manner in which it was distributed and also the manner in which the work was done by the Land Commission. Why was it that one portion of County Mayo, the most thickly populated portion, East Mayo, was practically excluded from any of the work carried out under the relief vote? You have in that area very lamentable conditions existing on estates that have been in the hands of the Land Commission for years. I, and other people, sent in communications demanding that certain works should be done, particularly in the way of road-making. With one exception not a single scheme was carried out in that portion of the county. Was there any particular reason for excluding that part of the county?

There is also the question of housing. I understand that the Land Commission has power to construct houses for tenants and to charge them a little extra in their rents for the expenses incurred. It would be a very laudable thing if that were done, because there are tenants who cannot afford, even with the housing grants, to build houses for themselves. I think the Land Commission should go in more for building and improving houses and putting the cost involved on to the rents of the tenants. This whole question is one that should be tackled in a big way. Even with all the Land Acts that have been passed here, including the recent Act, regarding the vesting of estates, the Land Commission are not yet in a position, evidently, to tackle the problem in the proper way so that it can be settled once and for all. I am convinced that this problem of congestion, where you have farmers trying to exist on small patches of waste land, is one of the biggest that confronts the State. There are many cases of insanitary house conditions as a result of people trying to live on starved holdings. Unless the Land Commission deals with this matter these lamentable conditions will go on year after year.

We have heard a great deal of talk about the success of the Shannon scheme. Will any Deputy deny that if the six millions which was invested in the Shannon scheme a few years ago were applied instead to the land problem and were utilised in planting the people on the land, taking them out of congested and starved holdings and making them real farmers, that that would not be a much better proposition? You would have had a better peasantry, because the people who live in these small holdings are the best elements in the State.

In the West of Ireland—and I am sure it is the same in other counties in which there is congestion—the farmers on small holdings are the best producers. They rely on themselves and not upon State bounties, State salaries or State pensions. As a rule, they rear large families and, thereby, are the largest taxpayers. These are the people who should be dealt with first by the Land Commission. If the Government had gone to the extent of floating a loan of five or six millions, or whatever it would have cost, to overhaul the question of congestion by dividing the ranches and planting the people on economic holdings there would be a very fine element in the State, existing under independent conditions, and they would be a credit to the country. Small struggling farmers on small holdings should be allowed to expand. The problem has never been seriously tackled by the Government. Until it is it will be a case of working against the grain and allowing the great evil of land slums to continue. If the Government was serious about the matter they would have the co-operation of ever party in solving the problem. For the reason that it has not been tackled seriously I will vote for referring back this Estimate.

Mr. G. Wolfe

I would like to join with those who have been congratulating the Parliamentary Secretary on his stupendous work in getting a Land Bill passed which will, as far as one can see, complete land purchase in the Saorstát. In the course of his speech Deputy Derrig labelled Kildare as one of the principal ranching counties. It is not a tillage county in the sense that Wexford is; nevertheless, if the Deputy went to South Kildare he would find that a very large proportion of the land is tilled close to Athy, Castledermot, and up to the town of Kildare. Even in North Kildare, where the land is not really suitable, a large proportion of it is tilled. If the Deputy would like to make a journey down there with the intention of seeing the tillage I shall be glad to help him.

Mr. Davin

The Deputy will be round there shortly.

Mr. Corry

We will soon give you a call.

Mr. Clery

We will accept the invitation.

Mr. Wolfe

A considerable portion of the land in North Kildare, although it is unsuitable, is under tillage. For instance, there is a considerable amount of tillage near Naas. A very progressive farmer who, unfortunately, has just died employed twenty men there, and there are others who had as much as fifty men employed at one time. Unfortunately there are not so many employed on the land at present on account of deaths that occurred, and which brought about reductions in establishments. An extensive amount of tillage is also done in other parts of the county, so that Kildare does not come under the heading of a ranching county.

I agree with Deputy Davin that the Land Commission is to be condemned for the manner in which it leaves estates after they have been divided. I raised the matter three years ago and was asked to give the names of estates. I did so and was later informed that the matter was receiving attention, but the estates are still in the same condition. On many such estates people tell me that the land is all right but that they cannot get into it in the winter owing to unmade roads. Another matter to which attention should be drawn is the fact that though 200 or 300 people get allotments of turbary they cannot get their turf away. In some cases they have been paying rent for three or four years for turbary which they cannot use. We are told that in some cases the allottees cannot be got to sign, and until they sign the roads cannot be made. I know people who signed years ago and who have paid their rent but have not yet got their turf. It would be only right that before people are asked to pay rent the turbary should be made accessible. I think it is a bad state of affairs to give an increase of £7,000 or £8,000 under the heading of salaries and to have a big decrease in the grant for the improvement of estates.

Formerly there used to be about £300,000 estimated for improvement of estates. We agree with the members of the Labour Party who stated that this is a bad time to reduce this expenditure, and that it should not be reduced until these improvements are carried out. Deputy Brennan mentioned what is happening in Roscommon on estates taken over by the Land Commission. In cases where the landlord kept the drains on these estates clear, the Land Commission has done nothing. Any time I visit Roscommon I receive complaints of that kind, and when I do not go down I get letters complaining that the land has been flooded owing to neglect of the drains. There is one place in the Athlone district called Drumlosh. The Land Commission drained one estate, the Kelly estate. The stream ran through this estate, and there were about three miles from the end of the estate to the Shannon. They left the last three miles to the Shannon without clearing up, with the result that the village has been practically inundated, and the people there tell me that they cannot stop in it. I think that is scandalous. If a private individual were to flood his neighbours, they would have a cause of action against him. I do not know whether they have a cause of action in this case against the Land Commission for doing this thing. In this case the people are isolated. It is called the village of Drumlosh, and is near the Kelly estate, in the parish of Drum. The roads are also very bad. I think that they should have made a way out for the water before they started their operations.

On another estate, the Coote estate, the bog is inaccessible. The tenants say that the landlord kept the drains clear. I do not know that there is any case for reducing the Estimate for improvements when things like that can occur. I think the work should be continued until all these matters are attended to. Instead of increasing salaries the money should be spent on work of that kind. There is another estate in Roscommon which ex-Deputy Finlay repeatedly brought up here until he resigned in 1924. He got letters saying that the matter would receive attention. I am getting letters to the same effect. On my return I was told that they would receive attention, but the matter has not been attended to yet.

Mr. Davin

It is having attention.

Mr. Boland

It is being attended to. They have changed the language—that is all. We get it all in Irish now. I am glad there is an improvement even in that respect. There is another estate in Kilteevan, and the people there are in a very bad way. It is a very congested area, but when the Land Commission proposed to acquire an estate in the district they presented their case so badly that the judge disallowed the claim. He would not allow them to acquire the estate because they did not bring forward any evidence that there was congestion in the district. It is certainly one of the most congested areas in the county. Perhaps the owner, Mr. Glover, was able to manage things in some way. I do not blame the Parliamentary Secretary himself. He meant to have the land acquired, but he was beaten. There is another estate which, it is expected, will be divided in the district, and I think these people should be considered in the distribution of that estate. It is called the Killerney Farm, near Kilteevan. I think the people there should be considered when the division of that farm is taking place. We all have had complaints in regard to the distribution of the relief grant. Deputy Clery mentioned East Mayo, and I must say that in that part of East Mayo adjacent to Ballaghadereen the people were left in a deplorable state. I have met people who told me that they were not able to bring their hay in, and they had to drive the cattle up to it. I sent in many petitions from the district, and I got the usual reply. I suppose nothing was done, but I think there was a good case for such a backward district.

Mr. T. Sheehy (Cork):

I must say that this is one of the happiest nights of my life, when I find members of every section in the Dáil throwing bouquets at the Parliamentary Secretary for his splendid work in connection with the Land Commission and the vesting of land. I congratulate the House on changing its atmosphere. We were kept for three or four days on the debates on the Budget. Volumes of talk came from the Fianna Fáil and Labour Benches, but behold, at the moment of coming to a division, all agreed that the only and the best policy for the Budget was the one advanced by the Minister for Finance. I congratulate the House for their unanimity on that. It is a clear indication that we are all coming to our senses, and that we are determined in this grand old State to adopt a policy of good sound commonsense when we are up against the problems that affect people. As far as administration is concerned, in connection with the figure of £350,000, over and over again Deputy Roddy has been placed in the pillory because it was alleged he did not give justice to every corner of the Twenty-Six Counties. It is a very large problem, and the sum is somewhat small, but I think all Deputies will agree that in the distribution of that money he proved himself an honest man. One Deputy who would join with me in that tribute is Deputy Murphy from Cork. Although he criticised some aspects of the Estimate somewhat sharply, I am certain he is honest enough to realise that our little constituency has not been forgotten. I am not in the habit of running over to the Land Commission or any other office, although I have been in the Dáil for three years, and I hope to get five more, please God, but I must say that whenever I did cross over to the different offices I was always knocking up against the followers of either Deputy de Valera or Deputy O'Connell, showing that they were all anxious to pull as many nuts out of the fire as they could over in these offices. I hope that the conclusion of this debate will be as unanimous as was the conclusion of the debate on the Budget.

Deputies waxed eloquent on the Budget. They all took it to their hearts. After all the debate there was on the Budget, the Minister for Finance showed that he was the most able man of the lot. We would be showing a good headline to the nation if all of us members on this side, on the Labour Benches and on Fianna Fáil, and in every part of the House were unanimous in passing this Estimate. Remember there is the sum of £500,000 at stake. There are hundreds and thousands out of employment. The spending of the money voted to this Department will have a most welcome effect in relieving that situation. I have been associated with every movement that was started in the country with the object of putting the people back on the land. No matter how men at the present day may disagree about politics, they are all at one in agreeing that the movement which helped to put the people back on the land of their sires was a great one. I ask the members of the House to be unanimous in agreeing to this Vote. Their action in doing so will give heart to the people. We should be unanimous on any matter that comes before this House which aims at improving and safeguarding the position of this great old country of ours and its people.

Mr. P. Hogan (Clare):

I am glad that the Deputy who has just sat down is happy. I hope he will remain so. I would like to say that if some of the bouquets offered to the Government and the Parliamentary Secretary are examined, an occasional brick may be found in them. I want to heave a bouquet and a brick at the same time at the Estimate that is before us. The outstanding feature of the administration of the Land Commission is the dispatch with which certain sections of it answer correspondence and the amount of valuable work they get through in a commendably short period of time, while, as regards other sections of the same Department, one gets very little attention for a protracted period. In the case of the collection branch I am in the position that I am able to offer it a bouquet. It is one of the most sympathetic sections of the Land Commission. I have no fault to find with the way it treats representations when made to it, and I have had occasion to do so pretty often. As regards other sections, the only change we find, as Deputy Boland has already said, is that where we get acknowledgements from them the correspondence is in Irish. I can assure the Parliamentary Secretary, who, I am sure, is an earnest advocate of the Irish language, that a mere acknowledgement of a letter in Irish is not of any greater value than if one got it in English. When we make representations to the Department we expect some work to be done. That exactly is what we want.

I refer now to such things as the flooding of lands, broken banks and impassable roads. When we make representations on these matters to the Department we simply get an acknowledgment. You send a reminder and you get another acknowledgment. If your representations concern land you simply get a statement that the matter will receive attention when the estate is being vested and you are left waiting. In connection with some cases of genuine hardship I am waiting as long as three years for some consideration to be given to them. I have, for instance, in mind a case at Carrigaholt where there is flooding. I went through the place myself and found it water-logged. Even the house is damp because of the fact that the water encroaches up to it. I thought that under the Relief Vote some of the money voted would have been expended in order to relieve the position of farmers suffering in that way. That is probably one of the most Irish-speaking districts in that portion of the County Clare. In my opinion, a certain amount of money could be usefully spent there in order to enable that poor farmer to carry on, to enable him to pay his annuities. But the fact is that no money was spent in that district at all.

I was taken to another district outside of Ennis which is flooded for many months of the year. Some three or four years ago I made representations to the Department, and asked that an inspector be sent down and some consideration given to the fact that the two people who own that place have to pay annuities. I know for a positive fact that they are making little or nothing out of the land they hold. They could not do so because it is practically covered with water. That land is situate at Dowra, outside of Ennis. In these two instances that I have given the Department has failed to do anything. The Department is not giving any real satisfaction in administration in these matters.

As regards the relief schemes, my constituency certainly did not get its proportionate share of the money voted. Of the share that it did get I have to make a serious complaint as to the way it was distributed in the county. I may say that the entire eastern portion of the county was neglected. Little or nothing was done there. I am not blaming the officers in Dublin for that. I do say that it was due in the main to the pronounced political prejudices of the outdoor staff of the Commission in dealing with these cases. I have no hesitation in saying that. I hope that under the Vote for the improvement of estates, and the amount of money allocated that something will be done to complete schemes begun under other relief Votes. I know districts where a road was asked for under the Relief Vote of 1927, a certain amount of money was expended on it, something like £400 or £500. The road, if completed, would prove very useful. It would probably take six or seven miles off people going to important fairs, and would open up a huge stretch of country. Yet, despite the fact that representations were made, and that £500 had been expended on portion of the road, it is still left there uncompleted. There were other works done in that district, but the road has been left there unfinished.

As regards the division of estates, I think the Land Commission is very lax. On several occasions I have brought to the notice of the Department, both by correspondence and question, in the Dáil one estate which was in their hands and which I was told would be acquired and distributed.

I passed the information to the Department that there were certain people who had acquired from the landlord portion of the estate. I am reliably informed that two of them have large farms. One of them who has got a portion of the estate, and is enjoying it at the moment, from the Land Commission, is 70 years of age and already has two farms of land. There are at least 40 economic holders in that district. Yet we are told because the landlord has sold a certain portion of his land to these two particular individuals the Land Commission is not anxious to interfere. Why, I do not know. They have the same power to acquire the land from those two individuals as from the landlord, and because the landlord was slick enough to get away with the money and to put those two people into a difficulty I do not see why the Land Commission should not interfere. If that is allowed to go on any person could dispose of any land he might have in that fashion and congests, and uneconomic holders, would get very little satisfaction. I have that case in mind, and the Parliamentary Secretary knows it, and I hope things of that kind will not be allowed to continue. There are other large farms of two, three and four hundred acres that could be acquired by the Land Commission for the relief of congestion. I have given particulars of a few of those to the Land Commission and I have got the stereotyped reply that the Land Commission does not propose to interfere.

Clare at present is not all occupied by economic holders. There are a large number of uneconomic holders there. There is land in Clare that could be acquired at a reasonable price to relieve these people. I do not know why the Land Commission should not interfere to relieve these people in those areas. I think the Land Commission might extend its activities in the matter of the housing of the people who live outside the Gaeltacht and who are entitled to better houses. The Land Commission has power either to improve houses there or to construct houses for the people. It is no harm that it should be known that the Land Commission has that power. We have frequently bombarded the Minister for Local Government because of his non-attention to the non-municipalised town. Taking a purely rural district, I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will not curtail the activities of his Department in this direction, and that he will give more attention to the erection of houses and to the improvement of houses in these districts, outside the Gaeltacht, where he has power to do so, than he is giving at present.

Mr. M. O'Reilly

It appears, according to the report of the Land Commission, that some 5,000 acres of land have been divided in the County Meath between 29 or 30 people. Still I cannot say I am satisfied at all with the policy carried out in that county by the Land Commission. First, I would like if consideration could be given to the method that is adopted in dividing up certain farms of land. They do not seem to be able to get away from an old tradition. I think the term applied in dividing the land would be "striking." The Land Commission comes in and strikes good land in the County Meath and certainly succeeds in doing a lot of destruction. It lowers the value of that land and makes it nearly impossible for the tenant to meet his rent, because the rent is high and the land is good. It all amounts to a confused idea as to whether it is to be divided up as a tillage farm or for grazing.

Economic circumstances have forced us into the grazing system, and in the County Meath and in other counties the grazing system is carried on. There is no other means of working the land there, and even if a man is a poor man he has to do it. The fact of the matter, when a good field is divided into stripes the excuse is sometimes given that it is for the purpose of putting stock upon it and getting them to water and that that can only be done by the long road. After the cattle leave the shed in the morning they seem to dirty the land getting down to the water, and in a few days' time it is trodden and the cattle refuse to eat it, with the result that I have noticed that where, previous to the division, the land produced some of the best cattle, it is to-day becoming a kind of hide-bound. I notice that not only in Meath but in Westmeath and, I think, on a few occasions in Kildare. It is a pity that that should occur. I know that the Land Commission would answer me that it is a question of getting access to water. I think it would be more charitable towards the tenants if they devised some other means of getting to the water than striping the land.

The next thing I would like to mention is the question of the consolidation of holdings. I received a number of complaints about that. There seems to be a great deal of confusion in the minds of the tenants about it. I noticed, on a few occasions recently, that one or two of them have been put to needless expense. I take it that this is not compulsory at all and that the tenant need not agree to it. In a particular case brought to my notice the tenant had to give good reasons for maintaining separate receivable orders. I would like the Parliamentary Secretary, when he replies, to explain these points.

The next thing I would like to mention is the question of migration in the County Meath. I am not going to deal so much with the exact question of migration as with the abuse of that system. Quite recently outside Navan, at Kilberry, a large farm of land was divided up, consisting of some of the best land in the County Meath, between three migrants. About a year ago one was brought in from Louth, a house was built for him and he got land, and he promptly set the house and the land. Another portion of this land was given to a gentleman who got a gratuity of some £3,000 for some Army service, or something else, and a pension of £90 or £100 a year, and another was a lady to whom there might not be much objection. But the sum total is that the people of the County Meath are represented there by one man, who is a herd. I have no objection to migration so long as it is not abused, but I object very strongly where those abuses occur. I admit if the Parliamentary Secretary is able to give a satisfactory explanation and to prove that the information I have got is wrong there is something to be said for him. But where one farm is divided between three migrants in a district and surrounding that land there are congested areas and uneconomic holders—men who are only making a living with the greatest possible difficulty and only because they have amassed some little money, they should get some encouragement. The only other land available there at the moment is 50 acres of bad land. This has gone so far that I received a resolution, passed by the Farmers' Union in the County Meath, a body which may not be wholly sympathetic with me or my Party, condemning the system in practice, altogether.

Further, when a farm on one of the estates is divided, the people of that area ought to get due notice. A lot of people from other counties imagine that there is no congestion in County Meath, that the people of County Meath do not need land, and that a farm of £5 valuation is quite sufficient to make a fortune. Of course that idea is gradually disappearing, but it did exist. The fact is that although 5,000 acres have been divided in Meath I cannot honestly say that I can see results; certainly from my correspondence and in passing through the county I do not see where it has been done. Of course I might suggest how it has been done, but to say that the people are satisfied is not the case, and my correspondence proves that it is not the case. Take the district of Dun-shaughlin; there are men there with 1½, 2 and 3 acres of land. Take the district of Enfield and the district of Dunderry, and the district surrounding Ballinacrea on the other side of Oldcastle. These are highly congested districts. Then we come to the district of Beaupare. Here we find a very peculiar state of affairs. There are nine untenanted farms comprising 1,200 acres of land, and over forty small holders with less than forty acres of land. In the parish of Yellow Furze there is not even a school plot to be got, although a migrant was settled in that particular area, with just a few uneconomic holders surrounding him. I have a memorandum sent to me by a committee of that area, countersigned by the priest of the area, who vouches that the items in it are perfectly correct. In what is known as the Ballinlough estate and the Green Hills estate there are 12 uneconomic holders and the highest valuation would seem to be £16 10s. The lowest valuation is £1 15s. That occurs in two different places. Other valuations are £5, £3 10s., and £4 15s. I think it would only be reasonable that they would get some show. In the other area something more or less of the same position exists. Perhaps the valuations are something higher; certainly there are two of £1 5s., one of £5 10s., one of £11, two of £13, and one of £15 15s. There are two or three herds. In another area in that particular district, we find eleven people of £13 valuation. There is one of £16 5s., another man has 28 acres, another man lives on the estate with four sons, another man has £5 valuation, and so on. There are several other areas like that, so it is not any wonder that people are dissatisfied. The majority of the people of County Meath are dissatisfied to see whole parcels of migrants put in on the richest land. We have no objection to migrants getting portion of an estate, provided that a sufficient number of uneconomic holders of the county get lands surrounding them. It is much better for the migrant, the Land Commission, and it leads to peace and contentment in the county. County Meath has been planted several times over. They dread that kind of thing. I do not think they ought to allow it to go on again, and I, for one, will not advise them to do so. I have no objection to migrants provided the migration is done with justice and discretion.

Another thing I would like to comment on is the question of drainage. Some two years ago a case occurred in the Oldcastle area where a landlord had maintained a drainage system for a number of years. The property was sold to the Land Commission. It seemed the Land Commission held a certain amount of money and invested it. The interest on it was devoted to the upkeep of this particular river. Since that occurred there has been continued flooding, and a most inefficient attempt was made two years ago to put the river in order. If the thing is not properly done this coming season, the only method that can be adopted is to demand this money from the Land Commission and put it into somebody's hands who can use it. Week after week I get complaints about that river. I thought, a couple of years ago, some satisfaction would be given about it, but none has been given. Those are my reasons for supporting Deputy Derrig's amendment.

Mr. Connolly

There is a matter of importance that I would like to put forward for consideration. Before I would enter into it, I would like to say in regard to the grant for the relief of unemployment given to the County of Longford that I do not think we have been fairly or equitably treated. I regretted to hear the references of Deputy O'Reilly to migrants from the congested areas to Meath. It was not the first time that I heard references made from the benches opposite to the activities of the Land Commission in this matter and their efforts on behalf of people living on small patches of waste land in the West of Ireland. If that is the policy of the Party opposite, I think it should be so stated before the Parliamentary Secretary replies. The lands of Meath, as everyone knows, are the best in Ireland, while the lands in the West of Ireland are not good and the holdings are small. The Land Commission in taking the people from these barren lands and planting them on the lands in Meath are doing very essential work, and they should have the support of every Party in this House. Fancy men holding farms of from 400 to 600 acres in the County Meath, where the land is the best in Europe. Is it the policy that those lands should be devoted entirely to the fattening of stock, and that the people whose ancestors were banished from them be kept in Connacht? It is strange at this stage in our history to find that mentality displayed on the Fianna Fáil Benches. I think this question of the transferring of migrants can bear the strictest investigation. The Land Commission should make every effort to bring back the people from the barren mountains of Connacht and put them on the lands which are not a bit too good for them. It is ridiculous to hear statements like those we have just listened to after the struggle that has been made for freedom in this country.

I desire to direct the Parliamentary Secretary's attention to the hardships that people in Longford, Roscommon and Leitrim are suffering through the flooding of their lands. It is the business of the Land Commission to find out how it can be remedied. These tenants are paying rents and rates while they have the greatest difficulty in saving their crops each year, and a great part of their land is rendered useless. We had evidence of the damage that is being done at a recent inquiry in Longford. Mr. David Sheeran, who holds 117 acres of land, the valuation of which is £65, gave evidence that from November to May his land was flooded to the extent of 17 acres. He estimated his loss at £30, which is quite a reasonable figure. Miss Brennan, of the same district, explained that her lands were flooded to the extent of 50 acres from November to May. She estimated her losses at £100. That is the loss that is caused while the land is submerged, but she suffers loss in addition, because young stock cannot be put on the land after the flooding as they would contract disease. She has to purchase cattle in the early spring. Mr. Joseph Maguire has land flooded to the extent of 15 acres each year. He estimates his loss at £30.

Mr. Dennigan has 120 acres, with valuation £40 and rent £40. He had 60 acres flooded from November to May, and estimates his loss at at least about £100. He is in an impossible position. He cannot stock his land for the season, nor can he procure young cattle, lest he might lose them through disease or fluke caused by the flooding of his lands. If the Parliamentary Secretary would assist me in this matter I will not detain the House very long. It may be a bit monotonous, but at the same time these men have certain rights. They want their grievance adjusted, and they want me to speak for them to the Irish Land Commission. In doing so, I think I am merely discharging my duty as a representative of the people. This matter will have to be remedied in the very near future.

I want the Parliamentary Secretary to send down his inspectors to these lands. I would like the inspectors to see the conditions under which these people live; to see the way their lands have been destroyed by floods each year. The inspectors will see for themselves the pitiable plight in which the people have to live. I have with me a sheaf of notes which it would take two hours or more to go through. I will not burden the House with any quotations if I can get an assurance from the Parliamentary Secretary that he will do as I request. There are 5,000 acres flooded there each year, almost half of the county. Some action should be taken at once to relieve the people. It is not fair to be taking money from these people and giving them nothing in return. It is just like taking money for goods out of which the people get no value. These people are paying thousands annually to the Land Commission and to the county council and they get no return whatsoever. Any crops they save are saved only after the greatest possible effort. To-day they may save a splendid crop of hay and to-morrow morning they may see their cocks being swept away by the Shannon.

A very small effort is all that is required in order to remedy the grievance. It is the duty of the Land Commission to make a through investigation and provide a remedy which will obviate future flooding. The people will not be content until this is done. I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary, now that his attention has been drawn to it, will move in this matter immediately; it is a moral obligation upon him.

Mr. Fahy

Fair enough.

Mr. Connolly

These people would be perfectly satisfied if the flooding is stopped, and in the last analysis, the remedying of their grievances will not entail any great effort on the part of the Land Commission. No compensation will satisfy the people; all they want is to have the flooding remedied.

Domhnall Ua Buachalla

Tá an méid seo agam le rá mar gheall ar Dháilcheanntar Chilldara, go bhfuil mórán den cheanntar san in easba dréineála agus bóthar ceart. Ní raibh leath a dhóthain sa chuid den £300,000 san a tugadh do Dháilcheanntar Chilldara. Is eol dom áiteanna beaga san Dáil-cheanntar in a bhfuil 20, 30 nó 40 daoine ad' iarraidh slí maireachtana bhaint amach. Ní dóich liom go bhfuil aon áit eile san tír ach amháin Contae Mhuigheo ina bhfuil níos mó daoine ag maireachtain as blúirín beag talaimh ná mar atá i gContae Chill Dara. Bhíos féin imease na ndaoine seo le déanaí agus chonnaiceas a gcuid phrátaí á mbaint acu. Bhí leath an bharra lobhtha leis an uisce. Bíonn an talamh faoi uisce ar feadh furmhór na bliana. Ní fheadar sa domhan conus is féidir leis na daoine maireachtain ann in aon chor. Ar an am céanna, tá talamh ann chó maith agus atá sa domhan. Tá fhios agam daoine tháinig ón Iarthar agus a fuair 200 acra den talamh so. Ní raibh an oiread san talamh acu san Iarthar agus ní raibh a gcuid talaimh chó maith leis an talamh a fuaireadar i gCill Dara. Tá feirmeacha talaimh acu chó maith agus atá sa domhan agus níl siad sásta leis an méid sin. Tá siad ag lorg a thuille talaimh chun féarach.

Mar adubhart cheana níor thug an Coimisiún leath a ndóthain airgid chun an talamh atá faoi uisce do dhréineáil agus chun bóithre do dhéanamh; baintear an mhóin agus nuair a bhíonn sí bainte ní bhíonn aon tslí ag na daoine chun í thabhairt amach as na portacha. Tá na daoine i gcruadhchás agus bíonn siad i gcomhnaí i gcruadh-chás. Tá súil agam go mbeidh a thuille airgid le fáil ón gCoimisiún chun bóithre do dheisiú agus dréineáil do dhéanamh sna ceanntracha so i gContae Chill Dara.

Mr. Maguire

I was rather impressed by the very forcible speech made by Deputy Connolly on this Vote. I think that speech is about the strongest condemnation, if further condemnation is required, of the Land Commission. He definitely told the Department that unless he gets certain guarantees that the very serious grievances suffered by the people of Longford, Westmeath and Leitrim will be set right, he is in complete disagreement with the action of the Land Commission. I would be delighted if the Parliamentary Secretary would give such an undertaking as Deputy Connolly has asked for. I am, however, very doubtful as to the sincerity of Deputy Connolly in the statement he has made. I have a knowledge of the conditions that he has referred to— the flooding in Longford, Leitrim and Roscommon. I know, and Deputy Connolly should know, that the cause of the flooding in the area he speaks about is due to the navigation of the Shannon.

When the Vote dealing with that matter was on here last evening, Deputy Connolly voted in support of that Vote; in other words, voted for a continuance of flooding in the areas and counties referred to by him to-night. It may be that the Land Commission will now, in order to save the defeat they may incur, give the undertaking asked for by the Deputy to set right those matters that are due to the incompetence of the Board of Works. But Deputy Connolly should have been present when the Vote of the Department responsible for the flooding in the areas was being discussed and then put forward his grievance, and he should have gone into the Lobby against that Vote. He should have voted specifically against it. I would like to see something like honesty on the part of a Deputy in this House.

Mr. Connolly

It is not my function to vote against the Party to which I belong. I am making representations here on behalf of the people whom I represent. My action, in so far as my vote is concerned, is quite my own business. I always vote with my Party and I am under no obligation whatsoever to Deputy Maguire as to how I am to vote.

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy Maguire is convincing the Chair that this matter should have been raised on the Board of Works Vote. I put that to Deputy Connolly already. I am glad that Deputy Maguire agrees with me.

Mr. Maguire

I do agree with the Chair in this matter. What I do suggest is this—that if Deputy Connolly is so clearly ignorant of the circumstances as to where he should ventilate his grievances in connection with the particular Department against which he has grievances, that is his own look out.

Mr. Connolly

It is not my function to find out what is wrong. That is the business of the Department.

Mr. Maguire

The Deputy has been down the country holding public meetings and making inquiries about this flooding, and he now comes here to justify a claim; and he is ignorant as to what particular Department should deal with this matter. If Deputy Connolly came in last night and voted in favour of the grant, which means a continuation of the grievances, after three months' investigation of the matter down the country, and after four years' representation in the House, then there is nothing more to be said, and I leave the matter at that.

Deputy Connolly referred with a good deal of emphasis to the statement made by Deputy M. O'Reilly as to the utilisation of the ranch lands of Meath for the relief of congests from the West. As far as I understood Deputy O'Reilly's references, what he said was quite consistent and was what any responsible man would say—that the landless men and the uneconomic holders should have the first claim on the ranches, and should be the first to be supplied with land. That is what Deputy O'Reilly said, and Deputy O'Reilly and this Party do stand for the utilisation of the ranch lands for the people who most need land.

Mr. Connolly

Deputy O'Reilly clearly does not want the migrants from the West in Meath.

Mr. Buckley

He did not say he did not want them.

Mr. Connolly

He did say so.

Mr. Maguire

Will the Deputy quote his words?

Mr. Connolly

Deputy Maguire cannot have it both ways.

An Ceann Comhairle

We cannot go back over the whole question now.

Mr. Maguire

I was here when Deputy O'Reilly made that statement. His statement was that it was the landless men and the uneconomic holders in Meath who should get preference in the distribution of the lands. He specifically stated that he had no objection whatever to migrants coming in after the local men were supplied. That is the common-sense meaning of what Deputy O'Reilly said.

While I am speaking on the Land Commission Vote I will read a few letters here that will very clearly illustrate the case I am making, and I will leave the matter at that without further comment of my own. On the 13th September, 1929, I received this letter from the Land Commission. It deals with the estate of the Earl of Granard, Co. Leitrim, Record No. L.C. 1050, and is:—

"A Chara,—With reference to your recent call at this office regarding the question of turbary in the townland of Rinnagouna, on the above estate, I am directed by the Land Commission to state that the matter is receiving attention."

That was on the 13th September, 1929. In reply to a question of mine during the last few weeks I was informed that the matter was under consideration, but no definite idea was given as to when the work would be completed. Here is a letter of the 31st of May, 1928, which reads:—

"I am directed by the Land Commission to acknowledge receipt of your letter of the 23rd instant, enclosing letter from Patrick Devaney, Corrycullen, Leckaun P.O., Co. Sligo, relative to erection of a gate, and to inform you that it will receive attention."

It is still in that state. The next letter is dated the 1st May, 1928, and deals with the estate of A.L. Tottenham, Co. Sligo, Record No. L. J. 33. The letter reads:—

"With reference to your inquiries in this office with regard to the cases of Mrs. Catherine McGovern, of Corracloona, and Mrs. Anne McDermott, of Loghtybarr, on the above estate, I am directed by the Land Commissioners to inform you that they have investigated both of these cases, and find that Mrs. McGovern was sanctioned and paid grants amounting to £35 for buildings, and for compensation for turbary and rights of way and drains. Mrs. Anne McDermott was also sanctioned and paid grants amounting to £45 for repair to buildings and compensation for turbary and rights of way. The Commissioners regret that they cannot see their way to take any further action in the matter."

I sent a further letter pointing out the claims on which these people based their application for further compensation, in the same month of May, 1928, and got no reply.

On the 17th of July, 1928, I got the following letter:—

"I am directed by the Land Commission to acknowledge receipt of your letter of the 13th instant enclosing communication received by you from the tenants of Kiltyclogher regarding the flooding of their lands, which will receive consideration."

They are still receiving consideration as far as I know. On 24th May, 1928, the following letter was written:—

"I am directed by the Land Commission to acknowledge receipt of your letter of 18th instant regarding the holdings of Mrs. Margaret McGoldrick, of Dromoo, and John McWeeney, of Derrywilliam, situate on the Harlick Estate, which will receive consideration."

They are still receiving attention. There are numbers of similar replies that I could quote, probably some of an earlier date and a some of more recent date. I will make a few remarks with regard to the Harlick estate. That estate was taken over under the 1923 Land Act, and was sub-divided amongst a number of tenants. Two of the persons who received substantial allotments of that property and substantial mansions, included a colonel of the British Army, and a Scotchman who came to reside in this country in 1914. Contrast their holdings with an allotment made to a small labourer, a resident in the locality. I received a letter from him enclosing the report of the medical officer who inspected his house. This is the medical officer's report:—

Ruskey, Dromod.

13th November, 1930.

I inspected the dwelling-house occupied by P. Reilly, his wife and family. The place is not fit for human habitation. It requires extensive repairs.—M.J. Dillon.

I have a letter from P. Reilly. This is what he says:

I got this letter some time ago from Dr. Dillon to give to Mr. Lynch, the State Solicitor, and I did so.... Our house is in a very bad condition. I lost my fourteen-months fine baby inside twelve hours, as the house is in a terrible state, draughts everywhere.... The pass we have to walk on is terrible, and our rent is £2 14s. 2d. per year for a one-roomed house. I have six in family, and I have to meet last May's rent, which I was summoned for, and they put 11s. costs along with the half-year's rent. I cannot get a day's work....

In reply to a question dealing with this estate the Land Commission promised to have the matter investigated and to send an inspector to make an examination. That inspector's report should have been before the Land Commission over a year ago. I have raised this matter often within the last four years; it is a sort of hardy annual. Nothing has occurred, apparently. In reply to a question last week I was informed that nothing in a very big way would take place by way of an alteration of the allotments that had been made, but that a considerable portion of the land given to Colonel Kirkwood, who is in occupation of the principal residence on the property, had been by arrangement with him taken over and would be made available for re-distribution amongst the uneconomic holders.

Will the Parliamentary Secretary state by what authority, in the first instance, this substantial amount of land was given to the owner of the mansion on this estate? Local tenants required that land for the purpose of enlarging their holdings, and they were prepared to pay the same price for it as that at which the Land Commission gave it to Colonel Kirkwood, who did not want it and who could do without it. The land was given to Colonel Kirkwood, and he kept it for three years. Now an inquiry has been held, and the Land Commission is taking it back. I wonder will they give the landlord anything in the way of compensation for taking from him land that they had given him?

Representations have been made again and again here by me and by others on behalf of the uneconomic holders in Co. Leitrim. Not a single thing has been done in a practical way to deal with the problem of congestion in that county. It stands in the position of being no man's land, being outside the scope of the Gaeltacht legislation, while it is one of the most congested and the poorest counties in the Saorstát. When representations are made to the Land Commission to take over substantial holdings, in order to enlarge uneconomic holdings, in every instance they refuse to move, although the facts are such that any reasonable body that inquired into the matter would be forced to conclude that action was urgent and long delayed. If the conduct of the Land Commission in dealing with County Leitrim is any example of its efficiency, then I say that the Land Commission is a very poor substitute for the landlords in the worst days of their rule and ruin in the country. There was some sort of personal touch in the old days with the landlord, and a tenant with a grievance could approach him, perhaps, through the bailiff, and some concessions were made. It is like putting a letter into the dead-letter box to try to approach the Land Commission with a grievance. No attempt is made to deal in a human way with the problem that exists in Co. Leitrim, and as long as the present state of affairs continues it is a disgrace, and this Department deserves the severest censure that public representatives in this House and outside can possibly give it.

Mr. Corry

I wish to deal with a particular aspect of Land Commission policy. I have alluded to the matter again and again in this House. Since 1915 onwards the banks adopted the habit of sending representatives to auctions of land. The banks would advance practically the full price of a farm to prospective buyers, with the result that the value of the land was greatly inflated. In my constituency the Land Commission has developed the habit of succeeding the banks as owners of these farms. First of all, the banks evict the tenants. The Land Commission then comes along, takes over the farms and pays the banks the amounts due by the borrowers. They clap the amount on to the annuities fixed on the land, and start parcelling it out amongst tenants. I gave one instance to the Parliamentary Secretary some time ago, and he has probably had time to inquire into it. The annuity on a farm at Killeagh, County Cork, was £74 yearly. The tenant owed the bank £600 and was evicted. The Land Commission took over the farm, having presumably paid the bank, and the new rent was fixed at £120. When the tenant who was on the farm found that he could not pay £104, which was the amount he had to pay the bank, allowing 6 per cent., it is very hard to see how an incoming tenant could pay £120. I think the system is a very bad one. The position is even worse than that, because the ratepayers are being mulcted in the matter. The ratepayers are interested, because when banks take over a farm the local bodies can recover two years' arrears of rates. The banks are pretty good marks for future rates. When the Land Commission takes over land and hands it to an unfortunate tenant to go in at an increased rent of 75 per cent., then the ratepayers are in a very different position, because in a few years the tenant finds he is unable to pay. He goes out of the farm and the ratepayers lose the rates. I think that is a rotten position for the Land Commission to take up, that of grabbing holdings, because that is what it amounts to.

I am aware of influences that prevail in my constituency at present on these lines. Deputy Davin gave an instance when he alluded to the gentleman with two pensions and a grant from the Southern Loyalists' Fund who got 25 acres in his constituency. These are the individuals that we are going to have planted in different farms in County Cork, gentlemen with a couple of pensions who got lump sums from the Southern Loyalists' Fund. I think that position should cease. There are sufficient evicted tenants in the country for these holdings, if there are any going. No land should be left for those who got grants from the Southern Loyalists' Fund. It is time that that ended. I consider this system of the Land Commission taking over farms from the banks, and providing an incentive for the banks to evict the unfortunate tenants, is a very bad one.

Another rather extraordinary Land Commission case came to my notice recently on Sherkin Island, West Cork. An unfortunate tenant there owed 25s. rent for a patch of land that he should be paid to live on. It took half an hour in a boat to get out there. Bailiffs were sent in and they seized a cow and a calf, the only four-footed animals that this so-called farmer possessed, and only for a good neighbour on the mainland, who paid up the amount, the tenant's position would be a very hard one. Although the amount of the debt was only 25s., the costs amounted to £4 15s., and they will come out of the price of the cow and the calf.

In view of the legislation that has been, I might say, forced through this Dáil, I am in no hurry whatsoever to see land divided in this country, for by the time all the compensation is paid out of the land, the people who go into it would be better off begging. By the time you have compensation for the landlord's interest in the holding, compensation for the tenant's interest and compensation for disturbance clapped on, together with portion of the price of the house that will be erected on the new patch, with the out-offices, the tenant would be better off with a bag going round from door to door. In view of that legislation, I am not going to press for land to be divided until a Government is put in who will see that there is a fair crack of the whip in these matters and that the tenants will get the land at a rent they will be able to pay. I, for one, am not anxious to see land divided in the present condition of affairs. I can realise the position of the Parliamentary Secretary and the Land Commission in their anxiety not to give land to the men whom Deputy O'Reilly alluded to—the labourers who would be working on these estates, or people of that description. I realise their extraordinary anxiety to get in a man who would have a slice of a southern loyalist grant and a couple of pensions. Men like that would be able to use the place as a rural dwelling—a place to which they would go in summer. They might be able to pay the rent in that way, but an unfortunate tenant who would get 25 or 50 acres, with all this new compensation clapped down upon him, would be unable to live in the holding. It would be absolutely impossible for him to live in it, not to speak of earning a livelihood for a wife and family out of it. I am not, therefore, anxious to see land divided in this manner. The 1915 and 1918 standard is still the standard on which the Land Commission purchase these holdings. If they were put up in the open market, they would not realise one-third of the price. Any person who reads the appeal cases and sees the price given to the landlords will realise the position for himself. He will realise that it would be impossible for any man to eke out a livelihood on one of these resumed holdings, when the new rent is clapped on.

I have nothing but words of praise for the Collection Branch of the Land Commission, judging by my experience of it. I like to give fair play, where fair play is due. The Collection Branch is inclined to give every fair play, but in cases like this it is practically impossible for them to give fair play, because the tenant has no hope of recovery. I have alluded here practically every year to the Condonstown Estate, Watergrasshill, Co. Cork. It is a hardy annual. I wonder if the Parliamentary Secretary has looked into the arrears on that estate? It was only taken over by the Land Commission in 1924. It was divided out amongst the tenants who found that they had to pay three times the rent their neighbours were paying after all this compensation had been clapped down upon them. The new tenants will be worse off, because they will have to pay compensation for disturbance. I should like if the Parliamentary Secretary would enlighten us as to the present arrears of rent on this estate. The information at my disposal is that though the tenants are only about five years in possession the best-off of the lot of them, who is an Army captain with a pension, owes two and a half years' rent. If that amount is due after five years, you can figure out how much will be due after thirty years. You will then come nearer the mark as to what has been done by the valuers of the Land Commission in estimating the value of land. You will realise that there is going to be a new problem and a difficult problem to be faced by a national Government later — the problem of taking out of the taxpayers' pockets the difference between the real value of the land, the amount a tenant can pay, and the amount of loot carelessly handed out to landlords. If the facts are as I have stated in this case— and I have no reason to disbelieve them—tenants in possession for only five years, already owe two and a half years' rent. That means that the land was purchased at double its value and parcelled out to those tenants. We all know that tenants will take land no matter what the price is, in order to get into possession. They hope for better days, but they find that they are unable to live on the land they have obtained, because the landlord has got two or three times its value. That is a problem that a future national Government will have to face. That is why I, for one, am not anxious to see these estates taken over and divided in the present position of affairs.

The Dáil went out of Committee.

Progress reported.

The Dáil adjourned at 10.30 p.m. until Friday, 15th May, at 10.30 a.m.

Dáil Éireann debate - Thursday, 14 May 1931