Even so, it is rather a staggering figure. I am only dealing with the salaries of officials and not with the money spent for improvements on estates, nor the money involved in making up the difference in prices in Committee cases, and so on. If we take it at the reduced figure of £45, it will be admitted that it is rather a high price to pay for settling these people on the land. I think that is really the way in which we should look at the work of the Land Commission, because their ultimate function is to settle the people on the land. All the other things are only leading up to it. If they are taking over land, inspecting it, sending out engineers and planning roads and other things, all these are only leading up to the one point of settling the people on the land. And if it is to cost £45 in salaries and expenses to settle each person on the land, then I think it is not anything that we can congratulate the Land Commission upon. The Land Commission has been congratulated here upon various things by Deputies, especially from the Cumann na nGaedheal side, on an improvement in their conduct during the last year or two. If they have become a little more quick in their work they are still a very expensive Department in the State.
Looking through the lists of officials in the Land Commission one finds it rather hard to understand how they can all possibly be employed or how work can be found for them all. I do not want to examine into the question now. Deputy Derrig drew attention under this Vote to certain cases where the number of officials was increased and where men in the inspectorial branch were pushed up from one grade to another, and he asked for an explanation. It is to be hoped that the Parliamentary Secretary has taken a note of that and will give an explanation. In looking through the list myself I did come across two particular officials who I did not know existed at all in the Government service. These officials are two tipstaves. I examined every dictionary in the library for this word, and it was only when I came to the Imperial dictionary that I found it. If the Parliamentary Secretary will go through all the dictionaries in the library he will not find the word "tipstaves" except in the Imperial dictionary. This word is the plural of "tipstaff." When he comes to this word in the Imperial dictionary he will find the meaning as people who are paid by the tipping of metal. That is how they are paid. At any rate, that is the dictionary meaning.
I wish to refer to another matter that has been raised on this Vote. It is a matter that particularly concerns the constituency of Wexford very acutely. That is the question of coast erosion. I know the Parliamentary Secretary will say that this question does not come within his province because it is at present under investigation by a Commission. But while that Commission is sitting, and they have been sitting for a long time, we have people in Wexford and in other parts of Ireland paying rates and taxes for land that no longer exists. I saw a letter from a particular man who says that for the last four or five years he is paying rates and taxes for twelve acres of land that has been eaten away and, in fact, has been cruised over by French trawlers who are taking the lobsters and the fish from the men of the Wexford coast. Even if the Minister would give this man the satisfaction that the land taken away would be fished over by Wexford fishermen, that Wexford fishermen would get lobsters and fish there, he would not feel the loss so much. What he does resent is that he has to pay rates and taxes for territory in which the French trawlers are getting fish and lobsters.
Another matter referred to by various Deputies in the course of the debate on this Estimate is the question of derelict farms. It was referred to by Deputy Corish. We all got the accounts of the Land Commission a few days ago, and they show a very satisfactory state of affairs. In practically every case the arrears have been brought down. The arrears outstanding at the end of the year under review are not as high as in the previous year. One would imagine on reading through the accounts that the farmers were paying their rent better than they were twelve months ago. That is really not the case at all. What happens is that the Land Commission are taking the money that should properly go to the county councils, and they are doing that more efficiently now than they were doing it twelve months ago. When the Land Commission do not get the annuities from the various farmers in a county they tell the Minister for Finance their trouble, and the Minister for Finance hands over to them a certain amount of money which would otherwise go to the county councils under the exchequer grants. The result is that the County Council of Wexford for the present year had to strike a rate of 1s. 2d. in the pound for the whole county, that being the amount of money needed to balance the money withheld from the county council in grant. That 1s. 2d. in the pound goes to the Land Commission to make up for the annuities that they were not able to collect on derelict farms in Wexford. I know, of course, that in many cases the Land Commission are far too severe in the collection of annuities. They have actually put people out of business.
At any rate, while that is possible I do not see why this report of the Land Commission accounts should be circulated to Deputies, and I presume to the Press and other people, showing what a rosy condition this country is in; that the farmers are better off now than they were twelve months ago, able to pay their annuities up to date, and that the arrears are reduced. There is another question akin to this question of coast erosion. It resulted from coast erosion. There is a district in South Wexford in a place called Slade. Four or five landholders have land there, and the only approach to that land is by a road which runs beside the sea. The coast was eaten away by the sea about four years ago. The result was these people could not get into their land, but all the time they were compelled to pay their annuities. The Land Commission sent down inspectors on three or four occasions to inspect the area and to see what damage was done, and they sent down engineers to see what it would cost to repair. I am quite certain, in connection with these various visits from officials of the Land Commission, that about 50 per cent. of the work could be done for the cost of sending them down. The whole thing would only cost about £200. It was to begin last year, but there was a little delay on the part of the Land Commission. The weather got a bit stormy, and they said they would put it back until the next summer—that is, this summer. Maybe they will and maybe they will not. I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to state why the people in Slade, whose only approach to that land is along this road, are getting no value whatever out of it. Being law-abiding people, they continue to pay their annuities and rates in the hope that the Land Commission will do something for them some time. There is this question also concerning ratepayers who have to pay both annuities and rates for farms that have become derelict. The ratepayers complain that the Land Commission are very unreasonable sometimes in their insistence on the total amount of arrears being paid up before anything can be done with the farms.
I do not know whether the Land Commission are bound by law or not, or if it is the practice to have a farm six or seven years in arrears idle and that they will not allow another man to take it over unless the full amount of arrears is paid up. Sometimes it may happen that a relative or friend of the occupier would be willing to come in and pay, say, half or 75 per cent. of the arrears and the remainder over a couple of years. He would be coming in there with the good-will of the occupier, but the Land Commission refuse to sanction the transfer of the land unless the total arrears are paid up. The arrears go on accumulating, until eventually they become so heavy that that land is not worth what is owed to the Land Commission. There appears to be no way out of it. I do not know whether the Land Commission are bound in this matter by statute or not. If they are, they ought to have the thing changed; and if they are not, I think they certainly should change their practice in the matter. If they get a tenant who is willing to pay a certain amount of the arrears and undertakes to pay off the remainder of the arrears with the annuities as they become due, they ought to accept that man, especially when he comes in with the good-will of the occupier.
There is the general question of migration, in which we are very much interested from the national point of view. On looking through some of the speeches on the Land Commission Vote last week I was very troubled to see that Deputy Connolly accused Fianna Fáil Deputies of being against the whole idea of migration. He said there were 400 and 600 acre farms in Meath, where the land is the best in Europe. He asked is it the policy that those lands should be devoted entirely to the fattening of stock and that people whose ancestors were banished from them be kept in Connaught? "It was strange in our time to find that mentality in the Fianna Fáil Benches." I read on to find on what basis he made such an accusation against the Fianna Fáil Deputies. I found that in referring to Deputy O'Reilly, of Meath, he entirely misrepresented what Deputy O'Reilly said. As a matter of fact Deputy O'Reilly made it very clear that he was not against the question of migration at all. He went on to give instances of abuses which had occurred in County Meath in the case of people who were brought in to the County Meath under this migration scheme. He said that out of three or four estates or farms occupied by these people they were represented by one Meath man, who was a herd. He said "a large farm of land was divided up in the County Meath between three migrants about a year ago. One was brought in from Louth; a house was built for him. He got the land and he promptly set the house and the land." I think Deputy O'Reilly had a perfect right to object to migrants of that sort.
He said that another portion was given to a gentleman who got a gratuity of £3,000 for Army service or something else and a pension of £90 or £100 a year; another was a lady, to whom there might not be much objection. The sum total of these is that the people of the Co. Meath are represented there by one man who is a herd. Here is what Deputy O'Reilly said about migration in general. If Deputy Connolly was listening to Deputy O'Reilly, he tried to misrepresent him completely, and through him the Fianna Fáil Party and their attitude to migration. Deputy O'Reilly said: "I have no objection to migration so long as it is not abused, but I object very strongly where those abuses occur." He said: "I admit, if the Parliamentary Secretary is able to give a satisfactory explanation, and prove that the information I have got is wrong, there is something to be said for him." I think nothing could be more reasonable than that.
Deputy O'Reilly said that there was congestion in the Co. Meath, and that he thought it was due to the people of Meath that that congestion should be made right before migrants were brought in. I do not see who could object to that. If there are uneconomic holders and landless men in Meath who deserve land they should be considered first. He made it clear that if that is done he had no objection to migrants from Connaught or Irish-speaking districts. Deputy Connolly tried to give this House the impression that it was the people living in small patches of waste land in the West of Ireland whom the Parliamentary Secretary was going to bring into Meath to settle on the land, and that Deputy O'Reilly was trying to prevent this. That is not the case. We are making room for these people on better patches of land in the West of Ireland by the migration scheme.
Deputy Wolfe said last night that it was a strange thing to see members of the Fianna Fáil Party, some of whom he mentioned by name, appealing for the division of land and the speeding up of that division when they had two or three years ago voted for a Bill that would take the power of compulsory acquisition of land out of the hands of the Land Commission. That was a very strange point. I suppose if we were to analyse the Bill that was brought in by Deputy Derrig for the vesting of land, we would find that it would have taken the power out of the hands of the Land Commission once the land is vested, but Deputy Wolfe's argument is an argument against vesting altogether. If we want to have the land vested, and if the Land Commission have not the power to do it, there is at least power left to this House to make it possible to have the land divided as it should be divided.
Deputy Wolfe also advocated a thing that I certainly would not like to agree with, that all those temporary inspectors and other temporary staff in the Land Commission should be put on a permanent basis. If there is going to be a big rush of work during the present year, and it does appear probable from the statement of the Parliamentary Secretary that all land will be vested, either on the 1st of May or the 1st of November this year, it would be more advisable, I think, to have a large temporary staff that could be got rid of in a year or two years without involving the State in large pensions, gratuities and so on. You are creating vested interests. If you put these men on the permanent staff it would be difficult to get rid of them again. Deputy Wolfe made a point about those men, that they would be inclined to kill the goose that laid the golden egg. He corrected himself afterwards, and said they would not be inclined to kill the goose. He would up by leaving us under the impression that he was not sure whether they would or would not kill the goose that laid the golden egg. The whole point is, who is the goose in this case? Certainly not the officials of the Land Commission. The taxpayers probably would be the goose that might suffer at the hands of the officials of the Land Commission.
Deputy Derrig has moved that this Vote be referred back for reconsideration. We heard very complimentary speeches regarding the work of the Land Commission. Still, even from some members of the Cumann na nGaedheal Party who will naturally vote against this amendment, we heard some condemnation of the work of the Land Commission. As a matter of fact, Deputy Connolly threatened the Parliamentary Secretary that there would be trouble if the question of flooding of the land in his district was not attended to. He had previously raised that question on the Vote for the Department of Industry and Commerce. He tried it on the Vote for the Land Commission, but he missed his chance on the Vote for the Board of Works, on which it should have been raised. Seeing that there is a good volume of dissatisfaction with the work of the Land Commission, I think that Deputy Connolly and those like him who are not getting as much satisfaction as they would like from the Land Commission should join with us in carrying the amendment proposed by Deputy Derrig. I believe that is the only way that we can get satisfaction from the Land Commission, because if that amendment is rejected, and if the Land Commission gets the money it asks for in this Estimate. I have no great hope that they will mend their ways during the coming year. I believe they will carry on the old system of taking their time.