In Committee on Finance. - Vote 55—Land Commission (Resumed). – Dáil Éireann (7th Dáil) – Wednesday, 11 May 1932

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

Debate resumed on the following motion:—

That a sum not exceeding £392,102 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, 1933, 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; 31 of 1929, and 11 of 1931.)

Minister for Lands and Fisheries (Mr. Ruttledge)

When dealing with this Estimate on the last occasion I think we reached as far as sub-head I, which deals with improvements. Under that sub-head there is a reduction of £20,200 from last year. I am informed that after examination by the Land Commission they considered that the sum of £191,050 represents the amount which was considered necessary by them to be expended in the present year. It represents what they consider at the moment could be usefully expended. During previous years there have been savings under that sub-head. Last year the saving was £50,000 and in the previous year something like £26,000. The reasons for that saving, I understand, are that a good many of the energies of the Land Commission had to be directed towards carrying out the relief works that resulted from the relief Votes passed in this House. Improvement works stand in a somewhat different category from relief works. Improvement works are closely related to the taking over and improvement of estates. They have to be examined in connection with those estates, whereas relief works can be considered and examined on their merits as matters apart altogether.

It may be necessary, before the end of the present financial year when these matters have been more fully examined, to come to the House and ask for a supplementary Vote, but at the moment the amount that is asked here represents what the Land Commission are of opinion can be usefully applied. In addition to sub-heads O, P and Q, which are really a continuation of similar sub-heads in the Estimate for last year, there is a new sub-head introduced for the first time this year. This new sub-head is to provide for possible payments under Section 34 of the Land Act, 1931, in respect of claims out of purchase moneys notwithstanding certain defects in title. It is not anticipated that there may be any such claims—practically very few at any rate—arising, and this can be regarded somewhat as a token Vote. With regard to the Appropriations in Aid, these are substantially the same as last year with the important exception of excess annuities under which provision is suggested for an increase of £15,000, due mainly to the setting up of provisional annuities payable by tenants on Congested Districts Board estates under Section 23 of the Land Act, 1931, and the corresponding increase in the "Excess Annuities" due to improvements to holdings effected by the Land Commission. On the other hand, there is a decrease of £3,450 in the collection costs for payment in lieu of rent, which has been practically wiped out by the operation of Section 9 of the Land Act, 1931.

As regards the general work of the Land Commission, if we take it up to the end of the past financial year, the altered position, by comparison with twelve months ago, is, briefly, that practically the whole of the tenanted land coming under the Land Acts 1923-1931 has been vested in the Land Commission, the exceptions being a few cases in which the full particulars have not yet been ascertained and the applications of fee farm grantees and lessees under Section 44 of the Land Act, 1931, where there will have to be some further investigation. That represents a tenanted area of 2,896,000 acres comprising 97,000 holdings and representing a total purchase price of approximately £19,750,000 is now vested in the Land Commission under the Land Acts, 1923-31. Of this area, only some 560,000 acres have been also re-vested in fee simple subject to Annuity payments in 16,300 tenant-purchasers. That will give an indication to the House of the enormous amount of work that yet remains to be done to complete re-vesting in the tenants.

The same applies to holdings on Congested Districts Board estates. Under Section 23 of the Land Act, 1931, 19,400 of these holdings comprising some 650,000 acres and representing a total re-sale price of about £2,140,000 have been listed during the past year so as to put the tenants on a purchase annuity basis, but their re-vesting in fee simple in the tenant purchasers remains to be completed, along with some further particularly difficult cases which have not yet been listed. The re-sale of the congested districts holdings now remaining is a very complicated problem on account of the existence of a large proportion of uneconomic landholders, rundale tenures, and so on which will necessitate a rearrangement of holdings.

As regards untenanted land, the Land Commission have acquired under the Land Acts, 1923-31, a total area of 405,000 acres and offers have been made or the lands gazetted for acquisition in respect of a further area of 122,000 acres, while an additional area of some 670,000 acres is in various stages of investigation with a view to its suitability for acquisition. Of the lands actually acquired, over 330,000 acres have been already divided amongst 16,550 allottees. This is apart from 160,000 acres of untenanted land divided by the Land Commission on the Congested Districts Board's and Estates Commissioners' estates since 1923. The total amount expended by the Land Commission since 1923 on the benefit and improvement of estates under all the Land Acts is approximately £1,705,000, and the total relief work expenditure by the Land Commission since the inception of such works in 1924 is about £500,000. Of this latter figure, approximately £43,000 was in respect of the Relief Act of last year.

With regard to the collection of the annuities, while we cannot state that the position is eminently satisfactory there is no reason whatever to take any heed or notice of the alarmist statements that have been circulated through the country in various ways. I am satisfied that the tenant purchasers and the tenant farmers are making a genuine effort to pay the land annuities, and that any hesitancy or any difficulty that has arisen is due entirely to the depressed conditions in agriculture throughout the country. If we compare the position, say, at 31st March with the position at 31st January of the present year we find that it is no worse: that the position on 31st March is equally as good as it was on 31st January. The annuities are coming in satisfactorily, and so far, despite statements to the contrary, there has been no necessity to resort to any extra pressure to collect the annuities. There are numerous applications before the Land Commission from time to time, and particularly within the last few months from tenant-farmers asking for time and indicating reasonable efforts on their part to pay the land annuities.

Deputies might expect that I should state something with regard to the policy of the Land Commission. I do not propose at this stage to say more than this: that it will be the aim of the Land Commission to co-operate with the Government fully and enthusiastically in what is the declared policy of the Government—to provide an opening and a living for every man of character and conduct who is willing and able to work. It will be the aim of the Land Commission not only to divide land but to divide it in such a way that it will enable the people put on the land to derive an economic livelihood from it. Every effort will be made to speed up the acquisition and distribution of land. I believe that much, if not all, can be accomplished on the administrative side, but should any difficulties arise requiring legislation, then I will come to the House and ask it to pass that legislation to enable a more speedy and satisfactory acquisition and division of land to take place. I do not propose to say more at this stage.

Mr. Roddy

The Minister's statement is not a very comprehensive one, and I think that for the information of the House, he should have dealt with the sub-heads in much more detail. I do not propose to deal with the sub-heads, nor do I propose to criticise any one individual item in the Estimates. I cannot do that for very obvious reasons. I only want to make a brief reference to the net increase in the Estimate this year, an increase which according to the Estimate amounts to £9,000. I think that increase is very small, when you consider the enormous amount of work the Land Commission had to do under the Land Act, 1931, last year. When Deputies remember that 70,000 holdings under the Land Act of 1931 were vested in the course of one year, and 20,000 tenants on Congested Districts Board estates were placed on an annuity basis, they will realise the enormous amount of additional work that was thrown on the staff of the Land Commission. I think that not alone Deputies in this House, but tenants generally throughout the country, owe a debt of gratitude to the Land Commission staff, and particularly to those members of the Land Commission staff who were actually engaged in the work of preparing the vesting lists. It was a remarkable achievement, accomplished in a remarkably short space of time.

I thought the Minister would have referred to certain very important aspects of Land Commission activity. There is one aspect of Land Commission activity that the Minister himself is particularly interested in— at least, his constituents are particularly interested in this aspect of the work, the reclamation work. I was anxious to hear something from the Minister in connection with that work, because I know that different opinions prevail, not only in the Land Commission itself, but outside the Land Commission, with regard to the usefulness of this particular work. A considerable area of land has been reclaimed during the last three years in Gaeltacht districts in the West, South and North, and I know that a certain view prevails, to the effect that reclamation work is rather expensive, and that the official view is that the State should get value for every penny of money spent by Government Departments.

I hope the Minister will not take the rigid official view on a very important matter of this kind, but that he will, when he comes to examine this problem of reclamation, look at it purely and simply from the standpoint of the needs of the people of this country, and particularly from the standpoint of the needs of the people in the Gaeltacht areas in the South, West and North. In his own County of Mayo a very important experiment was carried out some years ago, an experiment which, I think the Minister himself will agree, has been successful in every detail, and I hope he will see to it that that experiment is continued, not alone in his own county, but in the other Gaeltacht counties as well, and even in certain other counties outside the Gaeltacht areas.

I stress that matter of reclamation work for many reasons, but for one reason in particular. I stated myself on more than one occasion during discussions on the Land Commission Estimates that the area of land available for the relief of congestion in this country is very limited, and that even assuming that all the available land in the country has been acquired by the Land Commission, it would not be possible to provide for more than approximately forty per cent. of the congests, and consequently, every opportunity should be availed of for the purpose of rendering more land arable, in order that it will be possible for the Land Commission to provide for a larger percentage of congests.

I thought also that, on an occasion such as this, the Minister would have availed of the opportunity of stating what the policy of his Department was with regard to land acquisition and land distribution. In previous years, when I introduced similar Estimates, I was twitted by every Deputy of the Fianna Fáil Party, who were then on the Opposition Benches, about the delay in acquiring and distributing land, and I thought that I would have heard from the Minister to-day how he proposed to speed up the acquisition and distribution of land. That is a matter in which the people of the country are very much interested, and in which the people of his own constituency are particularly interested. I think, on the whole, that during the time I was associated with Land Commission administration I received more complaints from people in the Minister's own constituency than from people in any of the other twenty-six counties, and I am quite sure that the number of complaints has not lessened since the Minister assumed the responsibilities of office.

With regard to the payment of Land Commission annuities, I thought that the Minister would have given us some figures showing the latest arrears of unpaid annuities. An impression certainly does prevail very generally throughout the country, that there has been a considerable falling off, during recent months, in the payment of Land Commission annuities. It is quite true, as the Minister said, that one of the causes, and probably the primary cause, for the falling off is the depression prevailing in the country at the moment, but I am not so sure that a contributory cause has not been the newspaper propaganda carried on for the last two or three years. Quite a number of farmers were under the impression, that, when a Fianna Fáil Government was returned to power, they would not have to pay land annuities at all, and I think, as a matter of fact, that some members of the present Fianna Fáil Party, when carrying out their canvass in different constituencies, gave people to understand that when they were in office, and in control of the Government of this country, they would not have to pay any Land Commission annuities at all. I think the Minister will find that that is another contributory cause to the falling off in the payment of these annuities.

The Minister has referred to Sections 42 and 44 of the Land Act of 1931, and I am anxious to find out from him the number of cases actually dealt with up to the present under Section 42 of the Act, and I would be glad if he would see that the operations under Section 44 are speeded up. A number of small farmers, fee-farm grantees, particularly in the West of Ireland, have been harassed, during recent months, with demands for payment of the arrears of their rents, and, in fact, in some cases, they have actually been taken into the Courts, and decrees obtained against them. For these reasons, and in order to relieve these people of the dread of Court proceedings, I would ask him to speed up operations under the section relating to fee-farm grantees. The work, after all, cannot be very heavy. There are not so very many of these fee-farm grantees in the country, and I imagine that it ought to be possible to deal with them in a very short space of time. I hope the Minister will indicate in his reply if he proposes to follow the policy hitherto followed by the Land Commission with regard to reclamation. As he has refrained from stating what his own particular land policy is, and what the policy of his Party is, I have assumed that he has already satisfied himself that the policy hitherto followed by the Land Commission is the right policy, and the only sound policy for the people of this country.

Mr. Kelly

I welcome the announcement made by the Minister that he will facilitate the speeding up of the acquisition and division of land. In Co. Meath, the constituency I have the honour to represent, there is scarcely a parish but has its quota of ranches, which give a minimum of labour with no expenditure on improvements such as buildings, manuring and draining. We may be told that a county is rich because of its profusion of grass, but this merely gives us a wealth which cannot be diffused at present amongst our people. In fact, a large percentage of our poverty can be attributed to this cause. It may be argued that the ranching system is a necessary adjunct to the production of beef. That may be so, but the division of a larger holding into small holdings will not diminish its beef-producing capacity. It will certainly maintain it at its present level, if it does not actually increase it. Grass beef is a summer months' product. We have no beef coming off the ranches during winter time, when the price of that commodity reaches its highest figure, whereas from the smaller holdings we have a continuous supply of grass beef in summer time and a considerable output of stall-fed beef in winter time Therefore, if we require an all-year-round supply of beef we must necessarily give preference to the small holdings. Incidentally, we would be giving greater employment. In any scheme that may be introduced for the amelioration of the unemployed the division of land will co-operate. The ranching system being antagonistic to productivity is an enemy to employment. We require farms of sufficient size to guarantee that the occupier, with ordinary competent management, will be able to maintain himself in circumstannces devoid of financial worry. I have seen instances where land has been divided and the workingmen were not only refused a holding, but they were compelled to turn their cow off the ranch on to the roadside to graze. The tradition in the workers' families for hard work and integrity was not considered sufficient qualification for the working man to be trusted with a plot.

I should also like to point out to the Minister that where farms have already been divided the occupiers complain of the impossibility of supplying the necessaries of life when their annuity has been paid. When these farms were purchased by the Land Commission an exorbitant price was given to the landlord and, consequently, the Commission was forced by its own extravagant purchase to saddle on the shoulders of the incoming tenant an annuity which he was unable to meet. He was overtaxed, the land was overtaxed, an altogether undesirable state of affairs. He took over the holding with a poverty of equipment and, in the absence of initial help, he was altogether unable for the task. The Minister may not have had time to familiarise himself with the inner workings of the Land Commission, but I am satisfied that the system he has inherited can be improved upon. As an administrative machine it is expensive and cumbersome; it is unsympathetic to a degree, and has proved itself altogether incompetent to satisfy local needs. I hope that the Minister will not only introduce fundamental changes in policy, but that he will deem it advisable to introduce revolutionary changes in the system and method of administration.

Mr. Brasier

I was glad to hear the last speaker refer to the value of the small holder in this country. I can see that he appreciated the enormous potential wealth that lies in the labour not alone of a small farmer, but his family, and what an enormous increase to the wealth of this country would be brought about by an increase in the division of large holdings. Not alone are there these large holdings, but there is a large number of derelict farms which, perhaps, if the influence of public representatives were brought to bear, might be usefully divided amongst small holders in the- neighbourhood. That is a point to which I would direct the Minister's attention. That state of affairs exists very largely, I am sorry to say, in the constituency that I have the honour to represent. It is, above all things, a big national loss to the people of this country, having regard to the value of agriculture as the source of our national wealth. I would specially urge the Minister to take into consideration the delay, and the loss caused by the delay, in the final passing of these divisions by the Commissioners. Often two and three years elapse between the first inspection, the report that it is fit for division, the negotiations which must ensue on the value, the allocation to the allottees and finally the passing by the Commissioners of the particular persons to whom the lands have been allotted. I have in mind one particular farm at Ballymacoda the division of which has taken that length of time to carry through, and which has created a good deal of dissatisfaction.

There is another side of the matter to which I would also like to draw attention, and that is the loss and the anomaly caused by coast erosion on some farms which are being sold. If a fair rent has been fixed on certain lands the purchase price is assessed on that fair rent. Although that farm may be washed away before half the purchase period has expired, still the full amount is paid to the landlord and the Land Commission appear to be powerless to make any change. That is a point I should like the Minister to investigate and see if there is not some means of altering the law in connection with it. If it is not a judicial holding, then the Land Commission, I understand, can interfere, but if a judicial rent has been fixed, then the purchase money must be based on the fair rent, irrespective of whether the holding is going to be in existence at the end of the 67 years or not. There is no question but that lands have been purchased at an extravagant price. I would direct the Minister's attention to Section 1 of the Act of 1919 under which lands had been bought at peak prices and distributed at absolutely uneconomic rents to holders who are now utterly unable to pay the annuities fixed upon them. The result is that half these farms are really derelict, or else have passed out of the hands of the original occupiers into the hands of people who, perhaps, are just as badly off as the original holders.

I must pay a tribute to the Land Commission for the good sense with which they have treated the question of arrears. While these arrears are a big loss, there is no question about it that any undue and precipitate action on the part of the Land Commission in distraining for them will result in their being utterly unable to recover any further moneys from the occupiers. Therefore, I think, pending some arrangement with regard to these arrears, the Land Commission must be sympathised with and commended on the good sense with which they are dealing with that particular side of the question. I can pay a tribute to the courtesy they have shown at all times in any attempt to try and help people who are in arrears. It is uphill work, and I do not agree with the last speaker that the machinery is wrong. Considering the difficulties in the way, I think the Land Commission have done very good work.

Mr. Curran

I believe the Land Acts as administered at present are a farce. In the Swords district of North Dublin exorbitant prices have been given to the landlords. The landlords could not have got half the price if the land were put up for public auction. The lands have been given to unfortunate people who are not able to stock them or do anything else with them, and the result is that landlords, who, some three years ago, got these exorbitant prices, have the lands back now on the eleven months system. I wonder is the Minister aware of that? Outside Swords, only ten miles from here, there was a holding given to ex-Service men, and the farmers around have all this land at present on the eleven months system. The men who got it were not able to pay for it.

Mr. Minch

On a point of order. The Deputy refers to land being given to ex-Service men. Was it by the Land Commission the land was given to these ex-Service men?

An Ceann Comhairle

That is not a point of order.

Mr. Minch

The Deputy is mixing it up.

Mr. Curran

I may be mixing it up, as I am not very well up in land distribution, but as a resident in North County Dublin I can see what is going on. I could name these big landlords who got exorbitant prices for the land three years ago and who now have it back on the eleven months system, and have it stocked with their own cattle. If that is the way the land is going to be divided amongst the working-classes, I hold that the Acts, as at present administered, are only a farce.

Mr. Dillon

I would like to direct the attention of the Minister to the share of re-afforestation work that has been allotted to the County Donegal. I think he will find out, if he looks into that question, that every other county in which re-afforestation has been deemed to be practicable has had a very much better show than Donegal. I think if he asks the representatives of Donegal in his own Party they will tell him that the people of Donegal feel that they are being neglected and are not getting their fair share of the work which has been specially designed for the relief of the Gaeltacht, of the remunerative work, which is in no sense relief work, but work that will pay for itself in its own good time.

Mr. Roddy

On a point of order, I would direct attention to the fact that the Minister for Lands and Fisheries is not the Minister responsible for afforestation.

Mr. Dillon

I did not hear the Deputy.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy was pointing out that the Vote for afforestation does not come under the Land Commission. The Land Commission is not responsible for afforestation.

Mr. Dillon

Then I shall reserve my observations for another occasion. I understood the matter had been referred to, and I also understood that it came into the scope of the Land Commission and was under the care of the Minister.

Mr. S. Jordan

You are getting out of the wood all right.

Mr. Dillon

Yes, with your assistance. Another question that I would like to refer to—and here I believe I shall not be arrested in my course because it is a matter that apparently no one seems to be responsible for— and that is the old drainage boards all over the country. They are largely founded on the Act of 1846. I want to suggest this: that if, as at present, they seem to be under the benignant surveillance of the Board of Works, the Board of Works have no authority over them. They can make suggestions and encourage them; they can do everything but the one thing they ought to do, and that is to see that these boards are doing the work, for which they collect rates. I suggest to the Minister that he should look into this question of the old drainage boards set up under the Act of 1846 and find out if powers could not be taken to control their operations and to supervise their activities.

There is one other problem that I think unquestionably comes within the Minister's province, and it has already been referred to, and that is the matter of large farms. Large farmers have gradually got into the habit of letting conacre. They do not come under the heading of estates. They have never been dealt with under the Land Acts up to the present. I think the Minister might, with great advantage to the country, investigate the question of whether he could not acquire large holdings of land that admittedly for years have been let out in conacre to labourers and cottiers in the district, and to see if he could not take steps to acquire these farms for the Land Commission and sell them to the people who are actually working them and have been working them for years.

I think if he looks into conditions in Donegal he will find, in East Donegal particularly, that that system very largely prevails. I would be glad if the Minister would examine that question and find out if steps could not be taken to acquire these lands and distribute them amongst the people who are actually working them at the present time. I do not suggest that such land as I refer to now should be acquired under the compulsory purchase clauses of the Land Act, because I do not think that the compulsory clauses of the Land Act should be invoked to deal with them. But I do suggest that gentle, persuasive methods such as are employed by the Board of Works and different other Departments should be employed by the Minister so that the people who really work this land should become the owners of the land by which they live.

Mr. McMenamin

I wish to join with Deputy Roddy in his tribute to the work of the Land Commission in carrying into effect the provisions of the Land Act of 1931. This Department has been described by Deputy Kelly as somewhat of an anomaly. I notice he finished his speech without in any manner contradicting what Deputy Roddy said. Hence, we can now take it that Deputy Kelly accepted Deputy Roddy's tribute to the Department. What I want immediately to bring before the Minister is this: It is said that, under the conditions existing in the agricultural community, the land annuities are coming in fairly satisfactorily. That may be so. I have not the figures before me; the Minister has. But if I am not greatly mistaken there is a very considerable amount of arrears due, and much more than the average in recent months. However, I am not particularly concerned with regard to the figures themselves, but what I submit to the Minister is this: If, as he admits, the delay in payment is due to the conditions existing in the agricultural community, and if, as has been indicated through the Press, instructions are being sent out to the State solicitors to take immediate proceedings for the recovery of these annuities, I suggest the Department should employ some other machinery than legal proceedings, which adds additional heavy cost to the annuities which the tenants are already unable to pay. If they are actually unable to pay the annuity it would be an unbearable burden to add costs that would be, perhaps, three or four times the amount of the annuity. If that system is persisted in under present conditions, it would make the position of these people intolerable, and there would be nothing left but to eject them.

Mr. O'Rourke

I would like to ask the Minister whether he will be in a position to take steps to have the rents of tenants on the old Congested Districts Board and Land Commission estates reduced. I presume that will depend on whether the land annuities will or will not be retained. A very serious situation has arisen in the county I represent, as great numbers of the people are unable to pay the annuities. Their valuations are also very high. These people are in a deplorable state, and I would be glad if the Minister could say if he can make any attempt to reduce the annuities or to extend the period of payment during the coming year.

Mr. M. O'Reilly

I have not much to say on this Estimate, as this question has been worn threadbare. Deputy Roddy regretted that we were not going fast enough. That is very strange. Up to a month ago I was afraid we were going too fast. I actually advocated slowing up. I do not know whether it was an inheritance, or that things did not seem to be going as we would like to see them going, but I thought there might be reconsideration. For instance, I found I was up against most extraordinary problems. I found a migrant with 370 acres of land, while within three miles the people were in an absolutely hopeless plight. I do not know why they were left so, as on many occasions I attempted to have matters rectified, but I was always turned down. There is a place outside Navan known as The Commons, in which 59 families exist. There are about 170 acres there, or barely three acres for each family. These people have to walk to Navan, a distance of two and a half or three miles, to obtain milk. On the other hand, we find a migrant with 350 or 360 acres of land in the same district. I do not know if we are going to become benefactors in Meath. At any rate, we do not intend to continue to be any longer. My attitude is that we must make an attempt to look after the people of the district, as we have a considerable amount of congestion in County Meath. I did not see anything like it in the Gaeltacht or in Galway, and no attempt was made to relieve it. I think we ought to attempt to deal with that situation before we continue these migratory schemes as intensely as they have been carried out up to the present.

I have the names and the acreage in the cases I mentioned where the people are living under congested conditions. I do not think one of these people objects to migrants coming to County Meath, because they know that the Dáil, when passing this legislation, intended to relieve congestion in the West. We have not the slightest objection to that, but we object to being exploited to a degree that arouses suspicions. I am sure the Minister will take a note of the fact, and see that these schemes are attempted in such a way that the migrants will not find themselves in enmity with the people of the district. That can be done if a little diplomacy is used. One of the reasons why I thought we should go slow is that I think the land should be divided at certain times of the year. There are periods when it is financially suitable, and seasons when it is unsuitable to do so. A number of properties were divided within the last few months, and, as the tenants are liable for rent from the 1st January, that will mean that they will practically be paying in advance all their lives. In fences that are put up at certain times the quicks do not grow. The fences fall into the gripes after a few nights' frost, entailing considerable extra expense and trouble. For that reason I believe that some sort of close season should be arranged. I believe that good work could be done by the Land Commission during the summer months in revising land, and that a considerable amount could be ready for division from October to February. If the farmers got the land in November or December, they could make preparations to meet whatever charges would arise in the way of annuities.

Deputy Roddy was quite right to have his little jibe on the annuity question. I know that he does not mean half what he says. I got information that in fairs and markets recently people were heard to remark, "Jack, you are a fool to pay the land annuities. Do not bother doing so." The individuals who made the remarks had already paid. There is a good deal of that going on, and it should not be allowed. I believe it is right to invoke the law and to take notice when statements of that kind are made. I do not know much about the law, but I know that when a tenant gets down and out the Land Commission issues a writ and the rate collector immediately issues a writ. The result is that people will not visit these places, fearing that the rate collectors would seize their traps or cars. The unfortunate tenants next find that they cannot set their land, so that their affairs are brought to a standstill. I wonder could the Minister develop some other method of getting over that difficulty.

I know a number of farms that are high and dry owing to these circumstances. They cannot set the land. The auctioneers will not take them on and the families are starving. I know one case where a family had to get home assistance. I think we could manage to collect the rents and the rates in a different way and avoid putting a farmer out of action. I do not think that is a good way. I think we ought to devise some other method, as it is pitiable to see people who tried to work but who found that owing to a certain financial system and high organisations, not alone here but all over the world, they are down and out. It is not their fault. It is unfair that we should have laws that put them further down and prevent them from communicating with the people in the outside world.

I should like to draw the Minister's attention to the congested districts of County Meath. If he pays attention to these districts and relieves the congestion that exists in them he will find that there will be no difficulty as regards the migratory system. As long as the uneconomic holders and others are left to hang on and to look at the migrant visiting a big farm, which he sets in meadow at an auction which the uneconomic holders attend, there will be dissatisfaction. They have to pay for this meadow £5 an acre. I got a complaint from Gormanstown area that a migrant from Donegal was unable to carry on and that he set his land and was working under the Land Commission as a ganger. Another man who came from Donegal was actually working on the farm building ditches, having set his land. I think we have enough unemployment in Meath without adding to it. Because I say these things it does not follow that I or the people of County Meath are opposed to the migratory system.

Mr. Curran

You sacked all the married men and kept the single men.

Mr. O'Reilly

I make these remarks to justify us in our attitude when we oppose the migratory system as it has been carried on. If carried on along proper lines we will have no objection to it. On the contrary, we will co-operate and give every possible assistance.

Mr. Hassett

The statement made by the Minister that the ranches are to be divided will be welcome news to the uneconomic holders and landless men of Tipperary, which constituency I have the honour to represent. No county has suffered more in the past through clearances than Tipperary. No county is more ranch ridden than is Tipperary. Cromwell's edict to our forefathers was "To hell or Connacht." As he gazed over the Golden Vale of my county, he said, "This is a land worth fighting for." To-day, the descendants of these Cromwellian planters hold broad acres in that county, with the result that until emigration was shut off recently there was nothing for our people but the emigrant ship.

I should like to take issue with the Minister as regards the statement that the annuities are being paid as regularly as they were in the past. In my district, that is not so. I agree that, to some extent, that is due to the bad economic conditions. Agriculture is almost down and out. That is due, to a large extent, to the fact that too much money was put into the pockets of the landlords, not only for the ranches, but for the ordinary tenanted land. If some remedial legislation is not introduced, I am afraid you will see a great part of the county I represent cleared out again. Evictions will have to take place, because the people will be unable to pay unless the price of every class of agricultural produce goes up. The district I come from is paying roughly £3 per Irish acre in rent and rates. The farmers cannot continue to pay that sum although they are working their farms on a most up-to-date system. Civil bills have gone out all over the district I represent to a far greater extent during the past month or six weeks than they ever went out before. In my own locality two Civil Bill officers who heretofore could not afford any other mode of conveyance than an ass and cart are now driving practically every day in motor cars, the processes being so numerous. I am aware of that myself.

A number of tenants who have been served with processes have told me that they have not got the usual six days' notice. A large number of the processes shown to me were for only a moiety of the annuity. I can bear evidence to that fact. I had one Civil Bill in my possession last Sunday in which the amount demanded was £10 13s. 3d. for the December moiety of the annuity. On that Civil Bill, just after the process server had done his duty and before it entered the Court, there was a sum of £1 10s. 0d. marked as costs. What will the cost be to that poor man when it is so large before the case comes to the ordinary processes of the Court? The costs will be probably £3 or £4 more when it does come to Court. I do not know what the cause of these heavy costs is. Probably it is due to the Circuit Court rules giving power to the State Solicitors to treble their former charges. Formerly, the costs of such a Civil Bill would not be more than 10s. I would ask the Minister to consider that matter carefully and not to let the State Solicitors all over the country have a free hand with regard to costs. I think the only hope for the country if the Government is not able to withhold the annuities from England is to get a Bill passed extending the period of repayment from 68½ years to 100 years or 120 years. There is no reason why future generations should not pay portion of the high rents which farmers are now obliged to meet and which they are utterly unable to meet.

Mr. John Flynn

Arising out of the Minister's reference to improvement works and relief works, I think this question has not in the past been fairly or justly gone into. In substantiation of my statement, I have had the figures from 1st April, 1924, to 31st March, 1931, taken out and I find that out of a total of £1,160,984 expended on the improvement of estates in that period £75,178 was spent in Kerry and £276,656 in Galway. During the same period the total Land Commission expenditure on relief works was £501,000 approximately of which Kerry received £43,000 and Galway £64,000. I would suggest to our new Minister to have a just distribution and a fair basis as regards the allocation of grants for relief works and improvement works and that there should be a clear departure from the procedure carried on by the late Government in so far as the allocation of grants is concerned.

Mr. Gorey

It will be Mayo now instead of Galway.

Mr. S. Jordan

Take care would it. We are here yet as strong as ever.

Mr. Flynn

I would suggest that a fair basis would be the number of unemployed and the poor law valuation in each county. I am speaking generally, not alone for Kerry but for every other county. I am speaking more or less on principle. As regards derelict farms, the system in vogue at the moment has, to a great extent, led up to their condition. For instance, the sheriff of each county has to carry out a certain legal procedure which is in total conflict with the actions and resolutions which local bodies have tried to carry out to relieve the people. In explanation of that, I would like to point out that Kerry Co. Council had under consideration a system as a result of which they suggested to the Land Commission authorities that they could relieve the pressure by adopting the principle of allowing tenant farmers to carry on, and that they ought not to carry out the letter of the law in each case. We approached the sheriff in Kerry and ascertained that under the legal procedure as outlined to us, he could not accept payments unless the full amount of the debt had been tendered. The result was that the unfortunate farmers were not even able to let their land in grazing, the land was left derelict and the farmers were forced to carry on under terrible conditions. I therefore thoroughly agree with the last speaker and other Deputies who have referred to the question, that there should be some new system of alleviating the conditions that prevail in connection with derelict farms, having regard to the total inability of the people to meet the requirements. I agree also with the suggestion of extending the period of payment. In fact, I would specially ask the Minister to try to revise the system so that the sheriff in each county could accept moneys from the farmers concerned irrespective of the amount of arrears due. To make my point clear, I would point out that if a farmer owed, say, £50, which at the moment he was unable to meet, and if a grazier came along offering a certain amount, the sheriff should not be compelled to turn that grazier away because the amount tendered for grazing was not sufficient to pay the full amount of the arrears due. I would respectfully ask the Minister to change the system in such a way that the farmers could carry on and make an honest effort to meet their requirements.

Mr. Kiersey

I desire to make a few remarks in regard to what Deputy O'Reilly and the last speaker mentioned. From what I heard during the debate in regard to the collection of rates and annuities on derelict farms, the trouble complained of appears to be general throughout the country. I know that in County Waterford we have derelict farms on which a four-footed beast has not been for some years. The rate collector cannot allow the farms to be let or cannot let the farms for grazing or come to an agreement with the tenant farmer to take grazing stock on the land because if he did the Land Commission would come in the next day and seize the cattle put on the land. As the law stands at present the rate collector or the tenant, simply because he is not able to pay his rent, cannot take in any grazing stock or make any use of the land. I think that matter should be considered by the Land Commission. Perhaps one of the officials of the Land Commission might act as agent and set the grazing of these lands. That along with not demanding a full hundred per cent. payment from the tenant where a number of years' rent or rates was due would result in getting some money from them, probably most of the money, and there might be a little left to spare for the tenants. We have been considering it from every point of view, considering all the aspects of the case in County Waterford, simply, because of the loss which it means to the rates. Certain deductions have been made from our grants because of the amount due to the Land Commission, and we are not getting the rates due on these lands either. I support other Deputies who have spoken on this matter in the suggestion that an arrangement should be made under which this state of affairs need not continue.

Mr. P. Murphy

If there be one matter more than another which has given me great concern it is the method of collection adopted by the State solicitors. I would suggest that that could be rectified by collecting the amounts directly through the officers of the Land Commission. It has been my experience to see decree after decree issued against those whom I might call the weakest members of our population at the present time. I have seen decrees with costs altogether exceeding the amount of the annuities due and, in the event of seizure by the sheriff, I have seen and ascertained that the sheriff's men have actually left the premises on receiving payment of their expenses. That has been repeated week after week, and simply amounts in some cases to a farce. The men will call, receive their expenses for the day and go away satisfied.

I would suggest that some system should be devised for the purpose of collecting those annuities in the same manner as amounts due have been collected by rate collectors and also by income tax collectors, and that an order should be issued by the Land Commission under which these debts could be collected without any proceedings either in the Circuit Courts or the District Courts, as the case may be. I would suggest to the Minister the necessity of farming a scheme for that purpose. By doing so he would save a huge amount of money for those weak members of the community.

Mr. Minch

I support the statements that have been made by Deputies from other parts of the House in reference to the intent and keen desire to collect annuities that apparently has been the policy, and is the policy now. There is a constituency in which Deputy Davin should be in terested, Leix, and I am informed on reliable authority that over 600 processes have been served quite recently in that county and that over 400 more have been got out since. That state of affairs is certainly one in which the Minister should take a personal interest, because there seems to be a mass production of processes for service on unfortunate people who are not able, however willing they may be, to face the present conditions.

Mr. Kissane

I have been listening to the last speakers dealing with the question of collection of annuities, but I am afraid that they have not gone into the basic question of the responsibility for the breakdown of these derelict farms. There is no use in talking about the collection of rents at the present time in this country, because people are not in a position to pay, and I think, instead of going into figures or cheese-paring about the question, it should be suggested, as I respectfully suggest to the Minister, that he should bring about a scheme by which all arrears would be cleared off, that they would be paid ultimately, but that the payment should extend over a number of years, because as a good portion of the land of Ireland stands at present it is useless to the country. I think it is a shame to see so much arable land going derelict when some definite move could be made to convert it to some use.

So I think that in fairness to those people who have been paying their way up till now, it would be incumbent on the Ministry to pass legislation by which some solution of the question would be arrived at, because, after all, it is not fair to ask those people who have been paying their way until now to take the burden on their shoulders any longer. When people are not able to pay their land annuities the burden is thrown on the ratepayers and they have to pay interest on the money that they have to borrow. So I think the sooner these owners of derelict farms are put on their feet the better for the whole community in general.

Mr. F. Lynch

Like Deputy Roddy, I do not intend to deal with the various items on the Estimate which were, of course, prepared before the Minister took up office. There are just a few matters that I should like to refer to, however. I think it was Deputy Kelly who gave out a great tirade against ranches. Of course, there are ranches and ranches, and I think that this campaign against ranches can go just a little bit too far. I suggest to the Minister in his capacity as the Minister on whom lies the responsibility for the economic condition of the Gaeltacht generally, that he should be careful that he is not taken off his feet by any campaign for carrying on this division of land too far. Deputies from the Gaeltacht counties who understand the economic conditions in the Gaeltacht counties will realise that, to a large extent, the small holders in the Gaeltacht in South Kerry, West Kerry, Mayo, Donegal and in great portions of Galway, are mostly dependent for the sale of their unfinished cattle on the coming down of persons to the fairs there who have lands in the fattening counties of Meath, Kildare, and so on; and if these persons are put completely out of action, if their lands are taken from them, or if their farms are reduced to a point at which they cannot carry on in the particular way in which they farm them, the injury will ultimately fall on the small holder in the Gaeltacht. Deputy O'Reilly threw up his hands in horror at the idea of any migrant getting 370 acres of land. I should not be at all so shocked if he was a migrant from a congested area where five or six or seven hundred acres of land were taken from him and divided amongst the congests in the particular area from which he came, and if he was a man who was engaged largely in the cattle business and could not conduct his business except he had a large tract of land. I should not throw up my hands in horror at all at the idea of placing such a man in possession of a large extent of land in his new home even to the extent referred to if it would enable him to carry on the business which he had always carried on and enable him to go down and to purchase unfinished cattle where he had been accustomed to purchase them in the past.

One almost smiles when one hears of congestion in the County of Meath, but I can quite appreciate the fact that there are pockets in some of the Midland counties which are almost as congested as some places in the West and South. I agree that an effort should be made to satisfy persons in these congested areas in the Midlands, in the first instance, because it will smooth the way and make the path easier for the Department in bringing up migrants. But I think care should be taken that the persons who are selected are persons fitted to work the land and make it a paying proposition. Deputy Curran referred to some cases in the North County Dublin. I do not know about the cases to which he referred. I do not know whether they were Land Commission cases at all. They probably were not, but I can quite well imagine that the fact that those lands are now being let on the eleven months system to the farmers about, might just as easily be attributable to the fact that the persons who got the land knew nothing about the working of land or were incapable of working the land, as to the fact that too high a price was paid for the land originally and that they were responsible for the repayment. That indicates the care that has to be taken in giving out land to landless men. There is no use in giving land wholesale to landless men unless they are men who have been accustomed to work land, unless they know how to handle it, and unless they have some capital with which to stock it, or have sufficient guarantee behind them to enable them to stock it.

I cannot quite follow Deputy Flynn in his divisions of expenditure over a number of years. Presumably, the expenditure on the improvement of estates goes according to the estates that are being actually handled by the Land Commission. If estates are being handled in a large measure in one particular county, improvements will, naturally, follow the acquiring of estates there, and a larger sum will be spent in a particular year in that county. At any rate it would be a ridiculous suggestion to compare any one county with any other county as regards the expenditure of money in any given year or even over any given number of years. Conditions may be clearly different in the different counties. It would be just as sensible to suggest that the £191,000 provided this year should be divided by 26 and the amount so obtained allocated to each county. In the same way the division of money under the relief Vote was made, presumably, according as the necessity was greatest. I think a large portion of it was spent in Gaeltacht counties as a matter of fact.

Deputy Roddy referred to the question of reclamation. If I remember rightly, two systems of reclamation were in operation. There was one which I always thought had in it the elements of success. That was where a farmer was encouraged to reclaim portion of his land-bog or mountain land in his own holding rather than the system under which the Land Commission went in themselves, took a big tract of land, and started reclamation on their own account and then parcelled out claims and had it split up. I think that a system under which a farmer would be encouraged to add a little more arable land each year to his holding by means of some small bonus per acre would give a better result than the big and rather costly schemes of reclamation of whole countrysides directly by the Land Commission. That is a matter that I think the Minister should look into.

There is another point in which I have always been rather personally interested. It is in connection with the acquisition of land. Where the lands are being acquired in the neighbourhood of towns and villages, if it is at all possible a portion of such land should be set aside to provide playgrounds. I know that there is at least one precedent in Kerry in the Ardfert district in the Talbot-Crosbie Estate. A playground was provided there and vested in trustees. I know that there are demands from other towns and villages for similar facilities. I believe it is a proposition that the Minister should consider favourably whenever it is made to him. I think there will always be found a desire in most towns and villages for such facilities for sports fields, football fields and so on. I think you will always find trustworthy persons who will be prepared to act as trustees on behalf of the inhabitants of such town or village.

If I remember rightly there has been an unnecessary alarm about derelict lands. I think there was always to my knowledge an arrangement by which, for instance, a man could set his land with the authority of the Land Commission. I do not mean always, but in recent years there was such an arrangement. I have known of cases by which, through such an arrangement with the Land Commission, a man was allowed to set his land and the proceeds of the sale of the letting were handed, through the auctioneer, in repayment of his annuities or arrears, and if there was any surplus it went to the particular annuitant. If that arrangement continues I do not think there is really very much more that the Department could do. I remember that the Commissioner for Kerry was formulating a scheme by which these derelict farms were to be taken up and worked in a certain way. I do not know the exact details of the scheme. But if any individual annuitant is unable to set his farm and if an arrangement is made by which the cattle of the person grazing the farm are not liable to be seized for the arrears due, well, that is about as much as could be expected from the Department.

Mr. O'Grady

The particular difficulty in my area in the County Clare is in connection with the repayment of annuities by a large class of the smaller holders in that particular area. I refer now mostly to people who purchased their holdings under the 1923 Act. A great many of these people, if not all, purchased their holdings at prices which were based upon rack rents. These were estates where the landlords had been in the habit of allowing a rebatement of 40 per cent. in the rent. These tenants found that after the purchase of their holdings they had to pay a higher annuity than they were paying as rent before purchase.

There was an epidemic of fluke over West Clare which spread over the greater part of the county six or seven years ago. Many people there lost practically every beast they had at that time. They are still struggling and hoping against hope, and all the time there is an accumulation of arrears. I would like if the Minister would take into consideration this class of people for whom I speak, and that some consideration should be given to them so as to help them to tide over their present difficulties.

There is another matter. On certain estates on which there were large residences it so happened that when the estates came to be divided the valuation of those residences was added on to the holding with the result that the valuation of one particular division of land around the residence was rather excessive and was out of proportion to the intrinsic value of the land. That helped to place the people who got these particular divisions of the land in a serious difficulty. There is a matter which has been referred to by previous speakers and that is the issuing of processes without the usual six-day notice. That is a thing that should not be permitted, because it means adding on costs out of all proportion to the amount of the annuity involved. I hope the Minister will take the necessary steps to prevent a continuance of this sort of thing.

I would like to refer to the policy of the Land Commission in regard to farms taken over by banks. In several portions of my constituency banks advanced large sums for the purchase of farms. One might say they drove the price of land up to three times its actual value. Bank managers were at auctions offering money to prospective purchasers. Some time ago a bank sold out one farm of about 200 acres. The Cork County Council found itself in the happy position that at last it was able to get payment of rates that were due on the land. The Land Commission was also in the position that it could have obtained the arrears of annuities but instead of that the Land Commission relieved the bank of the burden and took the farm out of the bank's hands.

Mr. O'Donovan

Has the policy of the bank in 1922-23 anything to do with this particular Estimate?

Mr. Corry

The Deputy will learn a little more when he is here a little longer. When the Land Commission took the land from the bank the County Council lost a good ratepayer and the Land Commission lost the annuities. For the last two years that farm has been derelict. It remains in the possession of the Land Commission. No one can take it at the rent demanded. When the farm was taken over the amount paid by the bank was put on it in addition to the amount due by way of annuities and whoever takes the land now has to pay all. There are several farms in a similar position throughout the Twenty-Six Counties. I think that policy was a foolish one.

We heard a lot about migrants. I will give the history of one migrant. He was taken from a nice farm in West Cork and transferred to my constituency. The farm he left was 40 acres in extent. He was transferred to a farm at Condonstown. It cost £67 to remove him, his family and stock and he got £100 to assist him in erecting out-offices, etc. He has been in occupation of the new farm for five years and he owes four and a half years' annuities to the Land Commission. In trying to settle the case the Land Commission about a month ago offered him £67 more to cover his removal back to where he came from and a sum of £70 for repairing the house he left originally in West Cork. They were anxious to plant himself and his stock back there again and they would, no doubt, consider him a very good riddance. The point is that the annuities due on the holding to which he was transferred will come down on the next tenant. That is the history of one migrant. He was so well off that he refused the second offer and he had to be evicted. If a lot of other migrants were transferred in the same way I do not know where we would find ourselves. That policy was absolutely wrong.

The position in regard to large numbers of estates is that the land was purchased for at least five times its actual value and the tenants put on this land are absolutely unable to pay the rack-rents demanded of them. Steps will have to be taken to have the land re-valued and the State, no doubt, will have to bear the burden of mismanagement on the part of the Land Commission under the control of the late Government. I move to report progress.

Progress reported.

Dáil Éireann debate - Wednesday, 11 May 1932