The Minister's statement does not reveal very much activity on the part of the Land Commission during the past 12 months, and I do not think that the members on his own benches should feel in any way grateful to him for the work he has done since the Fianna Fáil Government assumed power. When those Deputies occupied these benches, the slowness of the Land Commission in distributing land was the main burden of their complaint in any discussion on the Land Commission Estimates. Over and over again, I was told that it was possible to divide land three times more quickly than the rate at which the late Government proceeded and, now, I find, from the Minister's reply, that, last year, only 30,000 acres of land were divided—half the amount under the rate of distribution in a normal year during the lifetime of the previous Government. The Fianna Fáil Government, when they took over the reins of office, were in an exceptionally favourable position to proceed with the distribution of land. They had, according to a reply I got from the Minister quite recently to a question of mine, 100,000 acres of land ready for distribution and the money was available at that time to pay the owners of the land. They had 100,000 acres ready for distribution and, yet, out of that 100,000 acres, they have divided only 30,000 acres during a period of 12 months.
I should like to know from the Minister why it was that so many of these schemes which had been prepared and sanctioned by the Commissioners before the Fianna Fáil Party assumed the responsibilities of office were held up. Why were these schemes not put into operation? I can understand the reason why the Minister cannot proceed with land distribution at the moment. There is no money available but there was money available at that time and that money was available up to the expiry of the British Guarantee on, I think, the 18th of last December, but the fact is that there were schemes in hands for the distribution of 100,000 acres of land and, yet, out of that 100,000 acres only 30,000 acres have been distributed during the past twelve months. In other words, their rate of progress has been something less than half the average rate of progress of the Government which preceded them. Notwithstanding the fact that the rate of progress was only half that of their predecessors in office, I find, according to the Estimates published this year, that there has been an increase of £3,000 in travelling expenses and an increase of approximately £7,000 in salaries. I should like to ascertain from the Minister what is the reason for this increase in travelling expenses.
The tendency, for some years before the Fianna Fáil Government assumed office, was to reduce the amount of travelling expenses year by year. The Minister will find, if he cares to look over the Estimates for the years 1932, 1931 and 1930, that there was a gradual reduction in the amount of travelling expenses year by year, and yet, this year we find that, notwithstanding the fact that there was a decrease in activity—a very marked decrease in the activity of the officials of the Land Commission—there has been an increase of £3,000 in travelling expenses. I wonder what is the explanation of that. In addition to an increase in travelling expenses, there has been an increase as well in salaries of, approximately, £7,000. Some of that I have no doubt is attributable, as the Minister said, to the normal increments of the civil servants in his Department but the rest of it, according to the Minister's statement, is due to an increase in staff. I wonder what are the actual functions of the new members of his staff? For what purpose has the staff of the Land Commission been increased?
Surely, the main purpose and the main function of the Land Commission is to acquire land and to distribute it amongst the people who require it. If, as the Minister said a moment ago, only 30,000 acres of land were distributed last year, why, I ask, was it necessary within the past twelve months to increase the staff of the Land Commission? On the face of it, that increase appears entirely unwarranted. I know that, in addition to the fact that there has been a considerable decrease in the distribution of untenanted land, there has also been a decrease, and a considerable decrease, in the activity of the Land Commission Inspectors in reporting on the suitability of land for acquisition and the valuing of land as well. Yet, notwithstanding the decrease in activity in every direction, there has been, as I say, an increase in travelling expenses and an increase as well in staff and salaries.
I should like to refer again to the distribution of land during the last 12 months. I know that there were schemes of distribution ready to be put into operation before the 9th March, 1932. I know that these schemes have been held up and I should like to know from the Minister why they have been held up. Was the Minister, or his predecessor in office, afraid that if these schemes were put into operation they would offend some of their supporters in the country? Surely it was the duty of the Minister when he found these schemes prepared ready to hand to put them into operation. It was his duty when he assumed office and took on responsibility as well, not to be frightened by the clamours of his supporters in the country. These schemes were prepared on fair, just, equitable and reasonable lines. I think the country is entitled to some explanation why land distribution is to be held up to all intents and purpose. I know that some poor and deserving people who had made arrangements when the change of Government came about, in the beginning of 1932, to take over these strips of land, were deprived of the right and have been deprived of that right ever since. I notice, from the newspapers, that in certain counties land distribution seems to have ceased and so have the primary functions of the Land Commission. An organisation outside the Land Commission has apparently taken control of things. I hope the Minister will see that no such organisation is allowed to usurp the functions which only the Land Commission can exercise fairly.
The second question I would ask the Minister is what portion of the money voted for the improvement of estates, last year, has been refunded to the Treasury? The sum of £101,000 was voted last year for the purpose of carrying out improvements on estates divided up by the Land Commission. If, as the Minister has said, only 30,000 acres of land were distributed during the 12 months ending 31st March last all that money would certainly not have been spent on development and improvement of those estates, and a substantial portion would be refunded to the Land Commission. Now, in view of the fact that it may be the end of this year before the new Land Bill, spoken of for such a length of time, comes into operation, this money may be used for the dual work of carrying out the improvement of estates in the financial year, and hence the sum is increased from £101,000 to £190,000. It is perfectly clear the Minister will not be in the position to proceed with land distribution before October or November this year. In the interval between 1st November and 31st March it will not be possible for the Minister to spend a sum of £190,000 economically, at all events, on the distribution of whatever land he may be able to distribute in that period. It is very doubtful, therefore, in present circumstances, however laudable the intentions of the Minister may be, if he will be in a position to have the major part of the Land Bill in operation by the 1st November this year.
When the Minister introduced this Supplementary Estimate for the purpose of making up the deficit in income from untenanted land under the Land Acts of 1923 to 1931, sub-head J., he was deputising for another Minister, and was not able to explain his reasons for coming to the Dáil to ask for a supplementary estimate of £90,000. I should be glad if the Minister would be able to inform the Dáil now what items were included in that estimate. On that occasion I wanted to ascertain from him what loss the Land Commission had incurred in clearing untenanted land. I wanted to know what part of the loss was due to the fact that the Land Commission had to pay a certain sum of money covering two months period of annuities and what portion of the loss was due to expenses that had to be paid—arrears in respect of rates and other outgoings which are inevitable. The Minister I think told me, in reply to one of my questions, that 50 per cent. of that estimate was composed of a sum towards the two months rent or annuities. The other figure appeared to be entirely abnormal but I would like, when the Minister replies, if he would be good enough to give further details regarding the composition of that figure of £90,000.
The Minister referred very casually to the Land Bank and Committee cases. I know some of these cases present a good deal of difficulty and because of this difficulty not common to other types of cases the Land Commission has to deal with these cases and to settle them verbally.
I would like some further details as to what occurred in the case of land that there was to sell under Sections 42 to 47 of the Land Act of 1932, the section dealing especially with these Committee and Land Bank cases. I know one Committee case—I shall give the details to the Minister if necessary —that has been in hands from the beginning of 1928, and which was on the point of settlement when I left the Land Commission. That case has not yet been settled and has not, in fact, developed or progressed one degree since I last saw it in the Land Commission.
On the question of embankments there is an increase which is justified in this Estimate. The embrankment problem in this country is a very special problem. I would suggest to the acting Minister, if he has any responsibility for the terms of the Land Bill, that he might go even much further than I went in the Land Act of 1931, with the object of securing greater power for the Land Commission to spend money on embankments. Year by year the embankment problem is becoming more acute and year by year the amount of money required for carrying out repairs for injuries to embankments, in the south and west of Ireland, is very much greater. Because of the abnormal seasons of 1931 and 1932 considerable damage was done to embankments in the counties of Limerick and Tipperary and also to the only one embankment that they have in Mayo. So far the Land Commission has spent no money in repairing that damage and it may be that portion of the money that the Minister is now asking the Dáil to vote may be allocated to the particular embankments I have in mind.
There is one work to which the Minister made no reference at all in his statement, and that is the experimental work which has been in operation in the Gaeltacht, in Connemara especially, Donegal and Mayo, during the past three or four years. Quite a substantial acreage of land was reclaimed and rendered arable by the judicious expenditure of a very substantial sum of money in these counties. The work was an experiment, but I think that by now the experimental stage should have been passed and the Minister should be in a position to state to the Dáil whether such work will become a permanent feature of Land Commission activity for the future. In every debate on Land Commission Estimates, Deputies, from the Gaeltacht areas especially, referred at great length to the reclamation work which was being carried out in these counties. I think that the work actually extended, in 1931, to five different counties. I think that it is due to those Deputies and to the Dáil that the Minister should avail of the opportunity presented to him on this Estimate to make a full statement as to the present stage which that work has reached. I know that in Connemara a very large area of land was reclaimed. Houses were built on that land. Portion of the land was tilled by the Land Commission for some years as an experiment, and the Land Commission, I think, was quite satisfied that the experiment had been very successful, even though the cost may have been somewhat abnormal. I wonder if the Minister has continued that experiment, or has he induced the tenants who are planted on these holdings to carry out the experiments themselves, what assistance is he giving them, or what assistance has he induced the Minister for Agriculture to give him in order that the experiments might be carried out completely?
I should like to know also from the Minister how far the vesting operations under the Land Act of 1931 have been completed. From the Minister's statement I understand that practically all the tenanted land which came under the vesting sections of that Act has now been vested in the Land Commission except some few difficult cases. I can quite understand the delay in vesting these difficult cases, but what I am particularly anxious to know is the progress the Minister has made in vesting the untenanted holdings distributed under the Land Act of 1923. I have not yet heard, in my own county at all events, that any of them have been vested. It may be that some of them have been vested, but I have not heard that any of them have been vested so far. I feel that in the lull that has taken place in the acquisition and distribution of untenanted lands the Minister should avail of his opportunity of pushing forward these cases and vesting them in the Land Commission.
The same applies to the balance of the Congested Districts Board tenants still to be vested. I realise that quite a number of these have been vested, but I realise also that there is still a big number of them to be vested. I should like to know what are the difficulties the Minister has encountered in vesting the balance of the tenants of the Congested Districts Board. Some of them have been waiting from 1911, 1912, 1913, 1914, 1915 and 1916 to have their land vested, and it was contemplated certainly, when the 1931 Act was passed, that all of them would be vested in at least twelve months from the date of the passing of that Act. It may be that there are special difficulties. I am not finding fault with the Minister or with the Land Commission for the delay, but I should like, as a matter of interest, to know what these special difficulties are.
The reduction in the Estimate is attributable entirely to the fact that the payment of £134,500 in respect of bonus and excess stock is being withheld this year. Whether that is going to be a permanent reduction or not, time alone, I suppose, can tell; but judged by the Estimate for 1931, the last really active year in the life of the Land Commission, the expenditure this year is as great as it was in 1931. The expenditure during 1932-33 is as great as in 1931, the last active year, as I say, of the Land Commission. It appears to me still that, in view of the fact that there is such a very marked lack of activity in the work of the Land Commission that all that expenditure is certainly not justified, and certainly the expenditure of £109,000, or at least the figure of £109,000 which the Minister is asking the Dáil now to vote him in the improvement of estates, cannot be justified in the circumstances.
There is just one last point. I think, some time before the last election, there was a Gaeltacht Commissioner appointed. I would be curious to know from the Minister what are the duties of this Gaeltacht Commissioner. At least, I cannot see in the Land Commission Estimates that any provision is being made for the payment of his salary. Does he perform any work, or does he perform any duties under the control of the Land Commission? Are his duties confined entirely to the Department of Lands and Fisheries? And if he does perform any duties for the Land Commission, I am anxious to know what exactly is the nature of those duties? I should like to hear also from the Minister if this so-called Gaeltacht Commissioner does perform certain work for the Land Commission, what are his special qualifications for the performance of that particular work? I assume, from a statement which I read in the Press at the time, that he would be engaged in the ordinary work of an inspector in the Gaeltacht. When the Minister is, perhaps, somewhat longer in the Land Commission, he will come to realise that an inspector has to go through a good many years of hard and severe training.
