Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 31 May 1932

Vol. 42 No. 1

Vote 55—Land Commission (Resumed).

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 & 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. Goulding

In the debate on the Land Commission Estimate every year we have the same complaints to make. Perhaps it will be no harm to reiterate a few of them now. One is in connection with the derelict farms throughout the country. There are quite a number of them in my area, and it is time that something should be done about them. Farms are left in such a condition that they are of no earthly use to the past owners or to the community generally. I think the Land Commission make a very grave mistake in not taking steps to see that some use is made of them. I take the particular case of one or two farms which I know well. They have been vacant for the past four or five years and the lands have become a commonage. In one case in my own place a certain man applied to the Land Commission for permission to graze those lands. It happened to be a relation of the person from whom the land had been taken, and he claimed that he had a right to graze the land. He was refused permission to take the grazing, and for some years past that land has been grazed by all and sundry. Cattle and sheep and horses and donkeys have been turned into it, and instead of that land being of any use to the community or returning any revenue, it is used as a commonage. Would it not have been better business if the Land Commission had agreed to let this land to this man and have got the rent for it and have saved the community from the annuities and the taxes which have been accruing on it every year and which the local ratepayers have to bear? That is only one specific case. There are several other cases throughout my county and there are others, I am sure, throughout other counties. In many cases the annuities have been allowed to run on for several years. I know of one particular case where the arrears of annuities amount to nearly £1,000. There are other cases where, if men are only short half a year, they are jumped on at once and before they know where they are they have a solicitor's letter, and they are rushed into court and they have to pay heavy costs, whereas other people are allowed to drift on from year to year with the result that the land has become useless to the country and in the end becomes a terrible charge on the people.

Then this question of the embankments comes up every year. A tenant reports a break in his embankment, and applies to the Land Commission. An inspector is sent down and he is told that the work will be done next year or when the weather gets finer. Time passes and the work is not done. In the meantime the stream has encroached inflicting further damage. What could be repaired for a few pounds in the first year costs a considerable amount in the end.

This has been going on for quite a long time. It is the old case of the stitch in time. This is one of the things that is causing a considerable amount of irritation in many parts of the country. Every year this matter is brought forward. I suppose next year some Deputy will say the same thing all over again. Of course it is only by hammering at this question in such a place that we will eventually succeed in getting the work done properly. We keep writing letters to the Land Commission, we get a courteous acknowledgment and the matter ends there.

Mr. Kiersey

Deputy Goulding has dealt with nearly all the points that I was anxious to mention. He referred to the conditions existing on the land in his portion of the county. In my end of the county there are several farms in the same position; we can get neither rates nor rent; we are carrying them on our backs. Deputy Goulding mentioned that one can see on the Co. Council lists where certain tenants are four or five years in arrears. I have observed within the last couple of days that the process servers were very busy serving writs for the November rent. There are many tenants who have been years in arrear. Of course they have been passing through a bad time. On the other hand, there are tenants who have been only a few months in arrear, and I think in those cases the Land Commission should not be too hard.

With regard to the condition of river banks, in many cases they are allowed to get into disrepair, and they cost a great deal of money. I know of cases where for years the people have been looking to get something done. The land is absolutely useless during the winter months. If something were done in the early part of the year, if the Land Commission put in the stitch in time, the expenses would be very much lighter and the tenants would have the use of the land during winter and spring. At the moment large areas of land can hardly be walked over.

Mr. Wolfe

I would like to express how much I appreciate the work that the Land Commission has done during the last year. That work reflects great credit, not alone on the Department but on the Saorstát. I am told that the Minister for Finance is looking for money. I will give the Minister for Lands and Fisheries a little tip that he might convey to him. I believe it will produce money very effectively without doing harm to anyone. At the moment there are in the Land Commission bonds held up representing compounded arrears. If the Minister could arrange for the payment of those compounded arrears, or rather for the bonds representing the compounded arrears, which are a personal debt due to the former landlord, without waiting for the final allocation of the estate, upon the condition that an affidavit would be filed setting out the ownership of the bonds and, in addition, exhibiting a certificate from the Estate Duty Office that all estate, duties have been discharged, the result would be that the Minister would get quite a substantial amount of money for estate duties which otherwise would only be collected by his successor or, at all events, would only be collected many years hence. If the owners of these compounded arrears now lying in the Land Commission Office were told that they are entitled to the compounded arrears if they produce a certificate from the Estate Duty Office that all death duties for which they could be held liable are paid, in many cases they will avail of the opportunity and they will pay claims that are now hanging over.

We are told that the Government are going to provide work for the unemployed. They have plenty of work at hand in the Land Commission Office. There are numbers of examiners on title required to finish the job that has been undertaken there. At present only temporary hands are being appointed, but even so, there are vacancies. I suggest that the Minister should look into that matter. I am not very much in favour of employing people temporarily, because I think the temporary hand does not do anything like the work done by the permanent hand. The Minister will find that there is sufficient room in that department for the employment of extra hands and, to some extent at least, he would be relieving unemployment.

With regard to examiners on title, I hope he will be in a position to tell the House how many have been appointed since the Land Act of 1931 came into operation. He could also tell us how many of those examiners are solicitors and how many are barristers. If the barristers predominate I expect the Minister will justify their appointment as against solicitors. We look to the Minister to carry out the honourable understanding of a very distinguished predecessor of his who, in connection with a similar office, led us to understand that these appointments were to be made on a fifty-fifty basis. I do not object to that basis, but if the appointments in this instance are not so made we will expect an explanation from the Minister. He will have to justify his attitude if he does not make a fair division of the offices. I wish the Land Commission every luck. I must congratulate them on the work they have done. That work has been due largely to a Cork man, who has done more than anybody in the entire office. Naturally one would expect that such a man came from Cork.

Mr. Flinn

Why is it necessary to mention it?

Mr. Wolfe

Since the passing of the Act of 1931 he has done his work most effectively and most ingeniously.

Deputy Corry

rose.

Mr. Gorey

How often is a Deputy entitled to speak?

An Ceann Comhairle

The House is in Committee and the practice has been that a Deputy is entitled to speak more than once.

Mr. Corry

When I was speaking on this matter on the last occasion I reported progress. I am very glad that my colleague, Deputy Wolfe, referred to the matter of the tip he was giving to the Minister. I hope that tip will not be acted upon. On a large number of those estates on which these compounded arrears are being anxiously awaited by the landlord I would remind the House that on a large proportion of these the landlords are being paid rents or interest in lieu of rent under false pretences. Compounded arrears are held up, certainly, particularly on account of objections which have been lodged in connection with these matters.

Mr. Wolfe

Would the Deputy say what compounded arrears mean, because obviously he does not know?

Mr. Corry

I know just a little more about it than Deputy Wolfe. Of course the landlord's solicitor should know more about it than I do, I admit that, but I would ask the Minister to go slowly in the paying out until such time as this matter has been adjusted and until the machinery has been, as Deputy Wolfe himself said, implemented. That was the handy phrase the Deputy used. I would ask him to wait until the machinery is implemented by which these unfortunate tenants will get back a little of what was stolen from them. I believe that steps have been taken in that direction and I wish the Minister Godspeed in it.

I was rather amazed at the statement as to a bargain being made between the late Minister for Lands and Fisheries and Deputy Wolfe as to the number of solicitors and barristers employed in the particular Department. I would like to hear a little more about these bargains. A little more enlightenment would be welcome at present. Perhaps if the heads of the agreement were placed on the Table of the House they would be most interesting.

Mr. Lynch

If the Deputy kept his ears open he would be more enlightened than he appears to be.

Mr. Corry

I heard what was said very well. Deputy Wolfe said there was an agreement as to the number of barristers who were to be appointed.

Mr. Lynch

I do not believe the Deputy has got the thing rightly. I do not think Deputy Wolfe said anything of the kind.

Mr. Wolfe

Deputy Corry does not understand it.

Mr. Jordan

He ought, for he is from Cork.

Mr. Lynch

What Deputy Wolfe said was that the late Kevin O'Higgins when dealing with the Bill creating the district justices said that the appointment would be divided equally between barristers and solicitors. He did not refer to any bargain in the matter of appointments between the last Minister for the Department of Lands and Fisheries and Deputy Wolfe.

[An Leas-Cheann Comhairle took the Chair.]

Mr. Corry

If that is the case I apologise to the Deputy for the statement I made. I am afraid, however, that I am very doubtful that Deputy Wolfe did not put it that way, but certainly I accept the Deputy's statement that he had not anything to do with this bargain.

Mr. Wolfe

There was no such bargain.

Mr. Lynch

If there had been such a bargain it would be quite equitable. I would not run away from it.

Mr. Wolfe

Deputy Corry does not understand the thing.

Mr. Corry

I quite understand. The principal reason why I stood up was to make an appeal to the Minister not to be led away by the soft solder of Deputy Wolfe in regard to compounded arrears. There was another matter to which I wished to call attention. Costs in those cases are unfortunately continuous, and I would suggest definitely to the Minister that at this stage when in 99 out of every hundred cases on which decrees are given in the land courts there is no defence; the judge goes through them as a matter of form, and when there is no opposition to the decree, he should implement some machinery by which——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That is suggesting legislation.

Mr. Corry

No; I am suggesting implementing machinery.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Has the Minister anything to do with these costs?

Mr. Corry

Certainly.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister has nothing to do with these costs. If the Deputy wants to suggest legislation he must take some other means of doing it.

Mr. Corry

I am not suggesting legislation at all. What I suggest to the Minister is that he put up for tender this job of issuing civil bills by the Land Commission.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That cannot be done without legislation.

Mr. Corry

Oh, yes, it can.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy cannot suggest legislation, but can criticise administration.

Mr. Corry

I am on the question of administration, and the matter can be dealt with by administration. At present an unfortunate tenant owing an annuity of £3 has these heavy costs tacked on to it.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Perhaps the Deputy would sit down. The Minister is obviously working within certain legislation and the Deputy cannot suggest new legislation. He can only criticise the administration of the Minister's Department under existing legislation.

Mr. Corry

And I am respectfully suggesting that there is no existing legislation.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That is my point.

Mr. Corry

It is my point also. There is no existing legislation compelling the Minister to give the issuing of these civil bills to any particular solicitor. I here suggest to him and I could guarantee that nearly 70 per cent. economies would be achieved if he put the issuing of decrees in these matters up for public tender between all the sharks, and the lowest shark will get the job. I think I will guarantee that in that case we would have 30/- clipped off the cost of the issuing of one civil bill and as much as £3 or £5 in some cases. The Minister would find that under tender the jobs would be done for 5/-. I would suggest to him in the interests of economy and in the interests of the unfortunate tenants affected that he should do this.

I believe this is a fair and sound proposition and one that has been carried out in numbers of societies and there is official precedent for it. It has worked out successfully as some Deputies on the opposite benches can vouch for. I would suggest that to the Minister as the way out of the matter of getting rid of an intolerable burden on the shoulders of the poor tenants where the cases are not defended and where the decrees go through as a matter of form. It is really only a matter of costs for the solicitors concerned. I really believe that if the Minister tries this plan he will find it work out most successfully and he will find that the cost on these unfortunate tenants will not amount to one-sixth of what they are now paying. I put that to him as a matter with which he should deal.

I also wish to impress upon him that it is high time the Land Commission ceased acquiring land from the banks. I put it to him very seriously that at present unfortunate people are in this position: their farms are seized by the bank; the tenants are evicted and the banks get possession. Then these farms are taken over by the Land Commission and the amount due to the Bank is clapped on to the annuities due on the farms when they are being divided up.

In those particular cases when a bank took possession of a farm the Land Commission had a perfectly sound tenant in the bank to pay the annuities. The county council had a perfectly sound ratepayer in the bank to pay the rates. During the past two years the Cork County Council has suffered severely owing to the action of the Land Commission in taking over those farms. Three were taken over in East Cork, and at present they are lying derelict in the hands of the Land Commission. The land annuities are piling up on them and the ratepayers are out of pocket. I think it was a false step on the part of the Land Commission to step in in those cases as emergency men for the banks. That is a mistake that should be rectified now. One of these farms has been lying in the hands of the Land Commission for nearly two years. I alluded to it last year. Nobody will take it because of the amount of the annuities the Land Commission was compelled to put on it, due to the fact that they had to pay £800 or £900 to the bank, due by the former tenant.

As I have said, that was a false step on the part of the Land Commission, one that will have very disastrous results all round. I suggest seriously to the Minister that he should look carefully into that and see that his Department does not proceed further in that direction. I say that because if the banks find that the Land Commission are going to step in and relieve them of their burdens then you will have 40 or 50 per cent. of the tenants in this State evicted by the banks. They will evict the tenants if they feel that the Land Commission will then step in, pay them their money and relieve them of their obligations. That was a false step for the Land Commission to take and I suggest to the Minister that he should abandon it. There is only one other point that I want to impress on the Minister, and that is that he might consider putting up for tender between solicitors the issuing of those decrees or writs. I am sure that if he does so that between all the sharks we will get some shark who will take the job at a cheap rate.

Mr. Wolfe

Would the Deputy say how much a shark charged him when he was one of the defendants in a Land Commission case?

Mr. Corry

Thank God, I never came into the hands of a shark.

Mr. Wolfe

Indeed you did.

Mr. Corry

Nor of a wolf.

Mr. Gorey

Some time ago when this Estimate was under discussion some statements and speeches were made on the strength of the idea that nothing had taken place with regard to land policy in this State within the last nine or ten years. Two of the Deputies who have spoken made reference to the rancher. The rancher as he was understood five or six years ago does not exist at all to-day. As we understood him in 1922-23 he has gone out of business altogether. In nearly every case the ranches are now divided up. If they are not they are in the hands of the Land Commission. The only person who can be called a rancher to-day is the farmer who owns 100, 150 or perhaps 200 acres. It was said here that that class of man only produces summer beef and that he was of no use to the community. I think if that class of man is eliminated a good many people in this State will come to realise that a grave wrong has been done.

It has also been said that winter beef is produced by the small farmer. That is not so. It is produced by the fairly large farmer. The small farmer only produces beef in small quantities. The man who produces beef is generally a tillage farmer who has to grow corn crops, manure the ground through the cultivation of root crops, and who has to feed in the winter. In most cases, beef is produced by the tillage farmer, and the holdings of those farmers are bigger; they are as big, anyhow, as the ranches as they exist to-day. High annuities are payable in regard to the estates that have been acquired within the last eight or nine years. If that is so, it is not the fault of the Government that negotiated the sales. It is the fault of the mobs that were misled by certain agitators down the country who forced the Government to buy regardless of the price. Time and again we have heard this: you buy, no matter what the price is. In almost every case the estates were bought in or about the market price. Many of us gave advice at the time not to force these estates for division: to wait until things became normal. That advice was not taken either by the people who wanted the lands divided or even by the Government at the time. We advised the Government not to be too hasty or to accede to the howlings of the mob, even though it was led by men who are now members of this House.

Mr. Gorry

Did the Government appoint a Judicial Commissioner?

Mr. Gorey

What has the Judicial Commissioner to say to it?

Mr. Corry

He had the fixing of the price.

Mr. Gorey

He had not.

Mr. Corry

Question?

Mr. Gorey

The fixing of the price for untenanted land was a matter of agreement between the Government and the tenant.

Mr. Gibbons

Was there the right of appeal to the Judicial Commissioner?

Mr. Gorey

There was an appeal, and in no case did the appeal make very much of a difference.

Mr. Gibbons

Did it not?

Mr. Gorey

In no case did it mean anything worth talking about.

Mr. Corry

It meant £66,000.

Mr. Gorey

In any case, why should not there be a Judicial Commissioner? Why should not there be some law court to decide between two people? What do Deputies suggest should take the place of the Judicial Commissioner?

Mr. Gibbons

I would like to know whether the Judicial Commissioner has, in any case in which there was an appeal, reduced the amount appealed against.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We cannot have a discussion on the decisions of the Judicial Commissioner. We cannot discuss the decisions of any judge, and the Judicial Commissioner has the functions of a judge.

Mr. Corry

May I point out that the Judicial Commissioner is on this Vote!

Mr. F. Lynch

No.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I want to tell the Deputy again that the decision of the Judicial Commissioner cannot be discussed here, and that settles it.

Mr. Corry

He is mentioned in the Vote.

Mr. Gorey

With regard to the purchase of tenanted land at least a certain principle was laid down here for guidance. I would like to hear whether that principle is denied or not; that is to say that the vendor was entitled to the price that his land would fetch at a public auction. Does anyone contend that the price of tenanted land should be anything less than the price it would fetch at public auction? On the last occasion we discussed this Vote I heard Deputy Curran say in respect to the price paid by the Land Commission for land in the County Dublin that the land would not fetch half that price at a public auction. That is a statement that ought not to be allowed to go unchallenged even by the present occupants of the Government Benches, because it is not true. We know that the price paid by the Land Commission in recent years for any class of land is much less than the price the land would fetch by public auction, and where the Land Commission is operating freely, land is worth very much less than it is in districts where the Land Commission is not operating, or in which there is no necessity for it to operate.

We had a long discussion here, on nearly every Vote for the last seven or eight years, with regard to derelict farms. Some Deputies, and, perhaps, some members of the public, will say that if a farm is taken from a certain occupier, it is an eviction, and that a great wrong is being done to him. There are people who are occupying land which would come under this heading of derelict farms, who will never make good and the longer they are left there, the more derelict will the farm become, and the less interest, and the less value, will it be to the occupier. Would it not be much better in cases where the Land Commission make up their minds that certain men cannot improve their position, to try and have a free sale by which some decent amount of money would come to the unfortunate occupier of such a derelict farm? With a restricted sale, no money at all is going to come to him, but with a free sale it would, perhaps, be of some good to him. That is an angle I would like to have considered. Farms sold with the consent of the occupier, will fetch two or three times as much, and more maybe, than they will fetch if they are put up otherwise, and in that respect, something should be done for the unfortunate owner. Again, if the annuities are allowed to pile up year after year the occupier's interest will be becoming less all the time, while his position is not being improved, and, as a matter of fact, he will be unfitted for doing anything else. That is an aspect I would put up to the Land Commission. I say that it would be better for him to quit before the load becomes too heavy, and, in that way, the owner's interest would be enhanced, because if the land is put up under his consent, the chances are that he will get two or three times more.

There is, perhaps, some truth in what Deputy Corry said, although I do not agree with him. Trade is so brisk at present, in the issuing and serving of writs, that I think it would be good business to get it done at almost a quarter of the charges that obtained a few years ago. Yesterday, when I was coming from Waterford, I met a process server—I do not know what the correct term is—a court messenger, who told me that he was making between £7 and £12 a week. He said that formerly the most he could get was one job in a month or so, while now he had a dozen a day. There might be something in what Deputy Corry says, as to putting these positions up for contract, because it is the only business thriving, at least, in my part of the country, and you might get it done at rates cheaper than the rates originally fixed.

It is rather tragic when one comes to think about the present position. Writs and court orders for small amounts are not, in my opinion, justified, and reasonable efforts should be made before putting people to a lot of expense. I know that certain formulae have to be gone through, and when they have not been gone through, it is the man's own fault, but there is quite a difference between "writting" a man for a year or two years' annuities and "writting" him for six months' annuities. Unless it is the policy of the present Government to stampede the people into paying, no matter what the justice of the demand is, I suggest that they should revert to the methods of the late Government. It is not the fault of the annuitants. Time and again, we have listened to politicians on public platforms—I will admit that the President did not, but the men further down the line—advising the tenants, and asking "Do you pay any annuities here? We are not paying any in our part of the country," and again, "Wait until we get in," followed by a wink with either eye, and a nod and a grin. I know of hundreds of people in my own constituency, who have been led into their present position because of tactics of that description.

Mr. Jordan

"Not the President but other members further down the line." Is that right?

Mr. Gorey

Yes.

Mr. Jordan

Name them, please.

Mr. Gibbons

As reference has been made by the Deputy to his constituency, I would like to know whether any of the representatives of the constituency, himself excluded, have made these statements to which he refers.

Mr. Gorey

No. The Deputy was not a member of this House at that time at all. The President has even said that people were only to be taxed in proportion to their capacity to pay. Those were his exact words, and if that has been translated into actual practice by the annuitant who is to blame? I will admit that the President has not spoken anything like so plainly as some of the lesser lights, but the President has said, time and again, and the President, or anybody else, cannot deny it, that the annuitant must pay something for possession of the land, based on his capacity to pay. In that case, I suppose we are to establish capacity courts to try the annuitants' capacity.

Mr. Jordan

You would pay a lot when it comes to capacity. You would pay more than I, anyhow.

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance (Mr. Flinn)

Mentally or spiritually.

Mr. Gorey

So far, I have tried to pay 20/- in the £, but I do not know how long I will be able to stick it. The position that the majority of the annuitants have been led into is cruel. Anybody who has heard the tales told by the people who are "writted," and "writted" during the last month—I do not know if "writted" is a proper word, but the facts are that they have been "writted"—know that if they have, it is because the people are now penalised for swallowing the stuff dished out to them by the Fianna Fáil followers. We heard the argument that the term in which land purchase could be redeemed should be prolonged, and it only remains to examine the different Acts and to know what is the particular percentage——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Could that be done under existing legislation?

Mr. Gorey

Yes, it could. The argument was used here and used in this debate.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

But could the number of years be extended under the legislation?

Mr. Gorey

I do not know, but, perhaps, if you ask the previous speaker, he might tell you.

Mr. Jordan

Quote.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

An extension of the term of years would require new legislation.

Mr. Gorey

"To extend it from 80 to 100 or 120 years." Those were the exact words used. If I am not permitted to comment on it, I do not insist on it.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I am not stopping the Deputy from making a passing reference to it.

Mr. Gorey

I cannot answer that legal question, but the Minister, perhaps, could say whether it could be extended. I do not know if he has that power.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I do not think he has.

Mr. Gorey

If I am not allowed to deal with it, very well. I do not know what sort of services have been rendered by the Land Commission in the past with regard to embankments. Some simple jobs have been done, such as repairing embankments twenty-five or thirty yards wide. The Dutch were able to keep the sea out two hundred years ago, and the Shannon scheme was constructed, but small embankments on the Nore and on the Barrow have not been made perfect yet. Two or three attempts to do the work were failures. The original embankments were made, but smaller jobs have been failures, because what were small gaps at first have now become enlarged seven or eight times the original size. I do not think that is a tribute to our engineers or to the Department. I am not expecting the Minister or his officers to do the work, but I am expecting that the experts from the Department or the Board of Works, wherever they are, would have dealt with this matter. Up to the present they have done damn bad work.

Mr. Flinn

Bad language!

Mr. Gorey

It is often used in this House. Very bad work has been done where attempts were made to do it. In some cases practically the entire holdings have been swept away. The injury done to land is very bad in the parish of Tullavin, on the banks of the Barrow. I ask the Minister to make another attempt to deal with the problem, and to send someone down to these districts in order that the banks would be restored to their original position. I understand that work was begun on the bank of the river as originally constructed but that the work gave away. The officials concerned then went back a considerable distance on the land and when that failed they went back further but the attempt was also a failure. I would ask the Minister to send down men who would restore the bank to its original position, because by doing so he will be restoring property to the owners and preserving a security to the State, seeing that the State is security for the annuities. The Sinking Fund and the principal have to be met. If the Government gets away with the annuity it will be all right but at present we have to pay the debts and our security is disappearing in this way.

Mr. Brasier

There is one item in this Estimate, amounting to £100, dealing with unoccupied holdings. Surely anyone who knows the amount of unoccupied land in County Cork must realise that there is a larger loss than that. It seems incredible that this particular aspect of the land question has dragged on the length it has, without something being done to rectify an evil that entails loss to the whole community. There is a double loss on these holdings, a loss of the annuity charge on the agricultural grant, and a loss in unpaid rates. There will be a loss, while no effort is made to adopt curative methods. While the debt remains on these holdings nothing will be paid on them, and no attempt will be made to let them. The occupants will continue to drag out an existence, akin to starvation, in the hope that they will be able to retain land that belonged to their ancestors. I suggest to the Minister that the time has come when he should introduce some measure to alleviate the position and to deal with these arrears in a sympathetic manner. There is no hope of collecting these arrears as matters stand at present. If the Minister would permit them to remain a debt on the farm, it might work out all right. That might involve legislation, but it would be well, I think, if they were permitted to remain a debt on the farm. Let the public and the tenant understand that. You could then try to deal with these farms in various ways. Portion of them could be sold at the regular annuity at present on them or they could be sublet. Probably they would be let for grazing or something would be done which would render them an economic proposition. As they stand, they are an absolute loss to the whole community.

I should like the Minister to say if it would not be possible to put those arrears back to the end of the repayment period. Let them be a debt on the farm and, when the purchase price has been paid, they can continue to pay these arrears as an annuity. As matters stand at present, there is no hope of getting the arrears. Why then continue them as arrears? My suggestion would not involve a loss to the State. At the end of sixty years or so they would be wiped out. It would be possible under my suggestion to put these farms once again on the market. Many of the tenants of these farms are in a hopeless position. In all probability, these farms would then realise their full value in the open market. There may be a judgment mortgage upon them. They are loaded with debts to bankers and shopkeepers, and something will have to be done with regard to the arrears and the rates. Two years' arrears would be accepted if the farms were being sold by the county councils. You could start with a clean sheet if somebody else was in occupation who could make them pay. These men have no capital. They have in many cases lost interest in their holdings. The farms have become ineffective as wealth producers. The holders have lost the capacity to make them pay. I suggest seriously to the Minister that the time has come to deal with this question of arrears sympathetically. These men have fallen, perhaps, through no fault of their own. Even if it was their fault, we are all aware of the change of conditions in recent years—the enormous gap between the receipts of the farmer for the produce of his land and the amount he had to pay. No aspect of this Vote would call for more sympathetic treatment by the Minister than this, and I ask him to deal with it at once.

Mr. O'Leary

In connection with the sub-head to which the last Deputy referred, I should like to draw attention to a farm in my own area. The annuity in respect of that farm is £60. With the exception of one year, it has been derelict for a very long period. I understand that the position is that there is about £600 of arrears on it. The Land Commission cannot let it unless the arrears are paid up. I bring the case before the Minister in the hope that he will look into it and see if anything can be done to remove the difficulty. The money is due to the county council and, at present, nothing can be done to improve the position. I am sure that a number of tenants would pay something to get into occupation, but I think the annuities are difficult to meet. I hope the Minister will inquire into the case. I shall give him particulars as to the situation of the farm any time he wishes.

Mr. Ruttledge

Deputy Roddy, at the opening of this debate, explained the obvious reason that this Estimate got such a smooth passage. The Estimate was prepared before the present Government came into office. The figures set out in it are the figures prepared before the late Government left office. The criticism to which the Vote has been subjected was largely concerned with details of administration and with matters that can be dealt with administratively. Deputy Roddy referred to one aspect of reclamation work, and Deputy Lynch dealt in greater detail with another aspect of reclamation work. What Deputy Roddy had in mind, I understand, was reclamation work, experimented in by the Land Commission in Galway, Mayo and Donegal. Comparatively large areas of mountain or bog were taken over by the Land Commission in these counties, and experiments were carried out by way of reclaiming those areas. Deputy Lynch dealt with another aspect of reclamation, which appeals to me more than Deputy Roddy's aspect, and which I think would appeal more to the House as producing better and earlier returns so far as the tenant farmers are concerned—that is reclamation that might be carried out by the tenant farmers of bog or mountain contiguous to their holdings. Both these aspects of reclamation work are in an experimental stage. As every Deputy will recognise, it is costly work. At the same time it must be recognised by the Land Commission that in a country like this, where every foot of land that can be made available is valuable, no opportunity must be lost sight of so far as reclamation is concerned. They must try to avail to the fullest extent of the land that can be made available for the people. I can assure Deputy Roddy, Deputy Lynch and other Deputies interested, that it is not the policy of the Land Commission to turn back the hands of the clock, but that it is their policy to pursue the lines of experiment that they have pursued up to the present. They hope to push it forward at a faster rate, so far as they can economically do it. Before the energies of the Land Commission can be turned in that direction to any considerable extent, we have to deal with the more urgent question of acquiring and dividing the untenanted land.

Deputy Roddy referred to the cases under Section 44 of the 1931 Act and wanted to get some information. From the way Deputy Roddy referred to them, one would assume that these were simple cases and could be easily dealt with. Up to the present, about 280 applications have been made. Of these, about 80 cases have been dealt with or are in course of being dealt with. Two inspectors have been set aside specially to deal with these cases and every effort is being made by the Land Commission to expedite and hurry up that matter. Deputy Brasier, Deputy Gorey and other Deputies have referred to the question of erosion and embankments. Several commissions—royal and otherwise— were set up in connection with this matter. They made reports and recommended experiments. Yet, we find that the position at present is as acute as, if not more acute than, it was before these commissions were set up. This is a big matter. It may appear to Deputy Gorey that these banks along a river are easy to deal with. To deal with this question effectively would entail a cost that I do not think would be justified. To establish protective works where erosion has been affected by the sea or by rivers would entail expenditure of such magnitude that I do not think the House would Vote the sum if we came and asked for it. The Land Commission are considering at present how far they can deal with this matter administratively. It may be necessary to introduce legislation. As Deputies are aware, where erosion brings about a reduction in the area of tenant purchasers, it does not relieve them of liability for the annuities nor does it relieve the Land Commission of the obligation to collect the annuities. Ameliorative measures may have to be resorted to to meet this aspect of the case. It seems eminently fair that such steps should be taken in cases where considerable areas have been submerged or have been eaten away. It may be necessary, in order to remove that hardship, to introduce legislation. That is being considered at the moment. Deputy Gorey may have in mind particular cases where only a small expenditure of money would be required. The Land Commission are quite prepared to examine any of those cases which are brought to their notice and to try to remedy them. If Deputy Gorey has any special cases in mind and if he brings them to the notice of the Land Commission they will be dealt with as expeditiously as possible.

Deputy Curran, on the last day, referred to lands in County Dublin which were divided up, the grazing afterwards being taken by the former vendor. The only case that I have been able to trace to which his remarks would apply is that of the Counihan farms at Swords. I think he referred to Swords. Those lands were taken over at what would not be considered an exorbitant price and were allotted. In one of those cases, I think the person to whom the land was allotted had died and the family were not able to arrange matters. Trustees had to be appointed. Others of them may not be able to stock the land for the time being. Some difficulties have arisen. The land was let back to the former vendor by the allottees but they made a substantial profit over and above the rent charged by the Land Commission. I think that would be a complete answer so far as the statement goes that an exorbitant price had been paid. One of these allottees got 67 acres. His annuity is £67 and the land is at present let at £100 to the vendor. Another of the allottees got 14 acres. The annuity is £16 3s. 0d. and the land is at present let at £25 per year. Another of the allottees got 14 acres, subject to an annuity of £16 5s. 0d. He has also made a substantial profit. I have not been able to obtain the exact figures. There may have been cases here and there through the country where what might be considered exorbitant prices were paid. It is quite possible, if these cases were examined, that it will be found that there was an agitation and a demand from the people to take over the lands at whatever price they could be got for. I think every Deputy has experience that farmers who are badly in need of land are prepared to give any price to get into land and think they will be able to make it an economic proposition. It is only years afterwards that they see the futility of it, and see how short-sighted they were in thinking that on such an annuity they could make any reasonable profit or decent livelihood out of it.

Deputy O'Reilly (Meath) referred to a case near the commons. I have tried to trace the case, but I have not been able. He referred to another case that he raised some question about in the House. As regards the lands of the commons there were only 36 acres available. I think the other farm he has in mind is rather convenient to that and at the moment is the subject of inquiry. He also referred to a migrant who was employed as a ganger. There is one migrant who was brought from Galway, I think, who was formerly employed by the Land Commission in that and other areas. He was an experienced ganger and his services were taken on, when he was transferred to Meath, by the Land Commission for a very limited job and a very limited period owing to his experience.

Deputy Hassett has referred to the position in Tipperary. I think the Deputy and other Deputies from Tipperary are well aware that for the last month or so the position in Tipperary has been brought very acutely before the Land Commission. Tipperary has had more ranches divided than any other county in the Saorstát outside Galway. I know that a considerable area of land was in the hands of the Land Commission. When representations were made to me some six or eight weeks ago, I took all possible steps to try and speed up the division of these lands. I think that after some short period we are in the position of having over 7,000 acres actually allotted, subject to putting the scheme into operation. I think that within a fortnight or three weeks from that period it was calculated that we would have allotted altogether in Tipperary something over 15,000 acres. That was in respect of some schemes that had been partly considered, schemes held up for some time, and other schemes that were in a backward way. Difficulties have arisen at the moment in Tipperary as to these allotments. I believe that these difficulties will be overcome. It has been represented to the Land Commission that, so far as Tipperary is concerned, and so far as other counties are concerned also, there is no advantage to be gained by the new allottees being put into possession at this particular time, and that it is in the interests of the new allottees themselves that their actually being put into possession should be put off until October. That is the position with other counties as well as Tipperary, to some extent. It is not considered suitable that fencing should be proceeded with at this time of the year, and the lands in the meantime between now and October can be economically let for grazing or meadowing or other purposes like that.

There was a complaint made by Deputy Flynn (Kerry) with regard to the amount of money spent in Kerry on improvement works and relief works in comparison with the County Galway. To understand the position with regard to Kerry and Galway one has to take their relative positions. He said that a sum of only £75,000 was spent on improvement works in Kerry during the seven years ending March 31st, 1931, as compared with £276,500 spent in the same period in Galway, and that only £43,000 was spent in relief works in Kerry compared with £64,000 in Galway during the same seven years. As I pointed out in my opening statement, improvement works are in a different category from relief works. Improvement works are related to the work of the Land Commission when they take over an estate, and are parcelling it out and dealing with it. These improvement works have to be closely examined, and they are entirely apart, and considered in a different way altogether from that in which relief works are considered. Relief works can be examined on the spot and dealt with expeditiously and are not subject to the same methods of examination as improvement works. If we take the amount of untenanted land dealt with by the Land Commission in Kerry during that period, and contrast it with the amount of land dealt with during the same period in Galway, it will give some relative idea, at any rate, as to how this money was spent. Up to 30th September last the Land Commission acquired 4,400 acres of untenanted land in Kerry. In Galway they acquired 99,000 acres. In County Kerry they actually divided 3,450 acres, and in Galway 63,000. That will, to some extent, explain why there is such an exceptional difference between the amount expended on improvement and relief works in Galway, as compared with the amount spent in Kerry.

A number of Deputies have raised the question of derelict farms and the present position of the Land Commission with regard to seizures and so on that might take place on these lands that the Land Commission have decrees against. I am afraid very few Deputies have examined into the real cause of these farms being derelict. I am sure that if Deputies examined into the cause they would find that at least in over 70 per cent. of the cases the Land Commission are not responsible. In the great majority of cases, although there may be arrears of annuities due to the Land Commission, it will be found that it is creditors, such as banks and others, who have really a hold over these lands. They are paying the annuities to the Land Commission as they collect them. There may be a few cases here and there, but the number of derelict farms that are non-productive for the Land Commission is very small. What is the alternative? In every one of these cases we are told that the people are afraid to stock the farms as the sheriff will seize the stock; that other people are afraid to graze them because their stock will be seized. There is not a single case where a reasonable proposition is put up to the Land Commission with regard to the payment of arrears out of the letting of these lands that an arrangement cannot be come to. All the Land Commission ask is that where there are arrears due the annuitant who is in default should go to an auctioneer and that the auctioneer should give an undertaking that out of the grazing money he will pay a certain proportion to the Land Commission, and so far as the Land Commission is concerned no sheriff will seize the stock. If anybody's farm is derelict it is his own fault. There may be exceptional cases, but they are very rare, and there is no ground whatever for the case made here that holdings are derelict through the fault of the Land Commission. That is not so.

Mr. Brasier

Where there are a number of years' arrears is the Minister prepared to allow them to lie over if the current rent is paid?

Mr. Ruttledge

There is no question of leaving over arrears. What we want to get, and what we are trying to get the tenants to do is that, so far as they can, they will make arrangements to pay the Land Commission by instalments. After all, if we owe rates out of our holdings we have to pay them; if we owe debts to the shopkeeper or other people, we have to pay them, and the Land Commission in this matter is in the position of any other creditor. They are anxious to make arrangements without any degree of harshness, and they are always agreeable to take payment of arrears by instalments that will be considered suitable and reasonable. If such propositions that may appear harsh to Deputies, are brought to the notice of the Land Commission they will be sympathetically considered, and such have been so considered, I am informed, when brought to the notice of the Commission from time to time.

Mr. Brasier

Can the Minister state the policy of the Commission on the matter of arrears? Take the case where there are four or five years' arrears upon the farm. No effort will be made to deal with these unless a public representative puts some sort of a policy before the people in arrears. Until they take that course nothing can be done.

Mr. Ruttledge

The step that I have suggested to the Deputy is one way of dealing with it. If lands are derelict, I say that when you get down to the root of the matter, you will find, in 90 per cent., they are not derelict owing to the activities of the Land Commission.

Mr. Brasier

I agree.

Mr. Ruttledge

But what arrangements can the Land Commission make when you have other creditors who can seize and give trouble and bring instalment orders and get enforcement of Court order against these people? What can the Land Commission do? All the Land Commission wants is that a portion of these arrears should be paid to them and any reasonable proposition with regard to meeting these arrears will be considered. As regards the question suggested by Deputy Flynn (Kerry), that the sheriff might be empowered to take arrears by instalments when he comes there with a judgment, that is a practice that could not be resorted to by the Land Commission. That is a power that could not be delegated to any official. If the tenant farmer, decreed either for rent or arrears, comes to make a settlement through the Land Commission payment will be taken from him by instalments—reasonable instalments—but they cannot make a departure from the practice presently in force, and they must insist on the sheriff collecting what he can get at the time.

Suggestions were made with regard to the question of costs. It is not the Land Commission costs more than any other costs. The scale of costs may be high but that must be dealt with in another way. It is not the fault of the Land Commission. When this was examined before the Courts of Justice Committee the Land Commission made a certain suggestion. When the Rules of Court came before the Dáil I opposed them, not with regard to the Land Commission, but on the ground that the scale of costs was too high. This is being looked into by the Land Commission at the present time with a view to seeing what can be done.

Mr. Corry

I hope they will consider my plan.

Mr. Ruttledge

There is such a thing as a trade union there. I do not know you will get a tender for it from anyone. I do not think it would be legal for these people either to do it. The scale of costs is set out and passed by the Dáil, and I am afraid they cannot be dealt with in that way.

Deputy Wolfe referred to the question of the bonds. What he had in mind, I think, was that the bonds should be released without waiting for the final allocation. That may be very desirable in so far as the present Minister for Finance is concerned, but I am surprised that Deputy Wolfe is not looking further ahead and hoping against hope that at some time there might be some other Minister for Finance who might profit by that in the future. I am sure it is a matter that will be sympathetically considered by the Minister for Finance and I shall bring it to his notice. Another matter Deputy Wolfe raised was the question by which he wanted a fifty-fifty basis for the appointment of solicitors and barristers as examiners. A number of examiners were appointed in the last 12 or 18 months, and so far as I am aware there is no necessity to increase that number. The objection is taken by Deputy Wolfe that these appointments are temporary but the work is of a temporary character. It is a loss to the State if you make permanent appointments where the work is of a temporary character and that is not the practice in the Department. You cannot go on any basis of percentage for solicitors and barristers. These positions are open to solicitors and barristers; they are positions for which both are eligible. They are filled by the Civil Service Commissioners who recommend to the Minister the most suitable people for the position. We cannot consider if they are solicitors or barristers and I do not think that any Deputy in the House is serious about it except Deputy Wolfe and I doubt if he is serious about it.

On this question of the arrears I notice that Deputy Roddy complained on the last day that some particulars were not given to the House as to the position of the arrears of land annuities. I think that when Deputies hear the figures they will be satisfied that the arrears of land annuities are being collected and that there has been no attempt, no organised attempt, at any rate, to prevent their payment. The arrears are being collected satisfactorily and they are coming in much better than this time last year. I shall deal with that in a moment.

As to what Deputy Gorey said as to sheaves of civil bills being sent through the country, take the position on 31st January in the present year. At that time, there was £776,352 of arrears of land annuities. Now for the months ending February and March of the present year the Land Commission collected £226,715, so that in two months the Land Commission collected something less than a quarter of a million pounds arrears. The figures at the 31st March, 1932, were £549,643, and if you take the payments from 31st March down to the present time, taking the latest date that we can get, 18th May, the arrears amounted to £485,495. Now from 1st April to 18th May last year, the sum of £47,103 was collected; for the period 1st April to 18th May this year, £64,232 was collected. Even if you take it by weeks you must take in conjunction with that the moneys that are paid in respect, not of arrears, but of current annuities falling due. From the 21st May to the 18th May of last year there were 74,354 separate payments, representing £415,773. From May 2nd, 1932, to the 28th, there were 73,502 payments representing £378,920. There were practically the same number of payments, but some of those payments were not so large. That is the position with regard to the collection of those arrears.

Deputy Gorey is inclined to blame everybody without naming anybody for something that he is really not informed about, and that is the position with regard to arrears. He has represented that civil bills are being sent out wholesale through the country. No such position has arisen. The normal procedure of the Land Commission is being followed, and that is simply about the month of March in each year a schedule or a list of defaulters is made out. That schedule is sent to the State solicitors through the country and proceedings are taken. Prior to that being sent out, six-day notices had already been furnished and demands made upon those people. After all, in any business, if you send out your demand note in the ordinary way and that is ignored and you send out six-day notices, which is a very definite notice, and that is ignored, and three or four months afterwards you send for the State solicitors can anyone complain? Meantime you have done nothing, you have made no representation to the Land Commission.

I am not aware and the Land Commission do not appear to be aware that anything abnormal has happened this year with regard to sending out sheafs of civil bills. There has been no attempt made by the Land Commission to shut its eyes to the depressed condition that exists in agriculture in the country. There has been every attempt made by the Land Commission to meet people in a reasonable and understanding way. If people are complaining about the number of civil bills that have been issued through the country it is because representations have not been made by these people showing the true state of the facts. There is no use in Deputy Gorey making the statement that somebody had stated that they would not have to pay. Can he give us the name of that person?

Mr. Gorey

I cannot recollect.

Mr. Ruttledge

That same thing is bandied about this House and through the country that some mysterious person went through the country telling people, as Deputy Gorey said, with a wink, that they would not have to pay their land annuities. I want to know who stated it and where it was stated. We have got an opportunity in this House. The statement has been made that it was made by somebody lower down. When we get a chance like this to challenge it we do so. I ask Deputy Gorey to say who is the person who made that statement. You have Deputy Gorey and other Deputies going through the country and stating on every side that Fianna Fáil Deputies told them not to pay the land annuities. They know perfectly well that that is untrue, that Fianna Fáil Deputies have told them quite explicitly that the land annuities would have to be paid. I am glad that Deputy Gorey made that statement for the simple reason that we get a chance here across the House to pin him definitely down. If Deputy Gorey could state who this person is who made that statement. I say that nobody here made it. I do not know what visions or dreams Deputy Gorey had. In any case I hope there is an end to such statements. The figures I have read out indicate very clearly that the people were not advised not to pay land annuities, because the people are paying them.

Mr. Lynch

Surely the Minister remembers one occasion in this House when one Deputy on the Fianna Fáil Benches said that that was his policy in any case.

Mr. Flinn

Does one swallow make a summer?

Mr. Gorey

The Minister will surely have an authoritative statement from me.

Mr. Ruttledge

You said you had it to-day.

Mr. Gorey

I have some of them.

Mr. Ruttledge

Cannot you give them now?

Mr. O'Shaughnessy

Might I ask the Minister where an agreement has been come to between the Land Commission and a defaulting annuitant and where the Land Commission have decided to accept a portion of the arrears with the current annuities, whether the grants will be withheld from the local authorities?

Mr. Ruttledge

As the arrears are being paid the local authorities are getting the benefit of them. It may not for this year, but as the arrears are being paid the grants come.

Mr. O'Shaughnessy

Where the tenant pays a portion that has been agreed on and the balance remains out, my question is will the grants be withheld against the balance?

Mr. Ruttledge

There is no provision as to that. We cannot deal with it that way.

Vote put and agreed to.