Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 22 Feb 1934

Vol. 50 No. 13

Vote 55—Land Commission.

I move:—

Go ndeontar suim Bhreise ná raghaidh thar £57,000 chun íoctha an Mhuirir a thíocfaidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh Márta, 1934, chun Tuarastail agus Costaisí Oifig Choimisiún Talmhan na hEireann (44 agus 45 Vict., c. 49, a. 46, agus c. 71, a. 4; 48 agus 49 Vict., c. 73, a. 17, 18 agus 20; 53 agus 54 Vict., c. 49, a. 2; 54 agus 55 Vict., c. 48; 3 Edw. 7, c. 37; 7 Edw. 7, c. 38 agus c. 56; 9 Edw. 7, c. 42; Uimh. 27 agus Uimh. 42 de 1923; Uimh. 25 de 1925; Uimh. 11 de 1926; Uimh. 19 de 1927; Uimh. 31 de 1929; Uimh. 11 de 1931 agus Uimh. 38 de 1933.

That a Supplementary sum not exceeding £57,000 be granted to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending 31st March, 1934, 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; 11 of 1931 and 38 of 1933).

Minister for Lands and Fisheries (Mr. Connolly)

This Supplementary Estimate is necessary to meet estimated excesses on two sub-heads of the Vote, viz.: Sub-head F. (Solicitors Branch—Incidental Expenses), £17,000 and Sub-head I (Improvement of Estates, etc.), £40,000; and estimated deficiency in Appropriation-in-Aid of £16,000; and expenditure under a new sub-head for payment of fees to under-sheriffs and county registrars under Section 28 of the Land Act, 1933, to the amount of £24,000; a gross total of £97,000 against which are set-off anticipated savings on other sub-heads amounting to £40,000, leaving the net amount required, £57,000.

The anticipated excess of £17,000 under sub-head F.—"Solicitors Branch —Incidental Expenses"—is due (a) to the payment to State solicitors of costs (amounting to £11,000) which were incurred by defaulters and which were funded under the provisions of the Land Act, 1933, and (b) to the payment of the special costs incurred in proceedings commenced after the 1st October, 1932, which, by Section 23 of the 1933 Act, were not to be funded and repaid in that manner by defaulters but were to be paid out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas as part of the expenses of the Land Commission.

The anticipated excess of £40,000 on sub-head I (Improvement of Estates) is due to the increased amount of work undertaken in connection with the Government's desire to proceed as rapidly as possible with the division of untenanted land. The monthly expenditure during the current year on roads, fences, drains, dwelling-houses and out-offices has been well above the average of recent years and much very valuable work has been done.

The original Estimate for expenditure on improvement works was £180,000 and it was expected that this sum would be exceeded by £43,000. However, the expenditure on the purchase of tenancy interests on Congested Districts Board estates for which a sum of £9,000 is provided in the same sub-head will be £3,000 less than the estimate which will reduce the excess of £43,000 spent on works to a net excess of £40,000 on the sub-head.

The anticipated deficiency of £16,000 in the amount of Appropriations-in-Aid of the Vote is due mainly to the operation of the Land Act, 1933. The receipts from costs normally recoverable from annuity defaulters, originally estimated at £3,000 and which have been funded under the Act, will be short by £2,200. The sum of £1,000 from annuities recoverable out of lands purchased out of the late C.D. Board's funds (known as Clare Island Annuities) which have now been revised and converted into Purchase Annuities (Section 4 (2) of the Land Act, 1931) will cease to be an item of Appropriations-in-Aid and will account for £1,000 of the deficiency. "Excess Annuities" (mainly for repayment of improvement advances) are reduced by 50 or 55 per cent. involving a decreased receipt of £6,300; and the instalments of additional sums payable under Section 51 of the Land Act, 1931, will also be similarly reduced under the Land Act, 1933, in consequence of which the receipts to be appropriated will be diminished by £8,700. It is also anticipated that there will be a deficiency of £750 in respect of the item for repayment of the late C.D. Board's loans (estimated to realise £990). Setting off an anticipated increase of £2,950 in miscellaneous receipts, the net diminution in Appropriations-in-Aid is estimated at £16,000.

The Estimate of £24,000 for the new sub-head is to provide for payment to county registrars and under-sheriffs of the lodgment fees payable to them in respect of warrants to be issued by the Land Commission under Section 28 of the Land Act, 1933, for the recovery of unpaid instalments of Land Purchase Annuities, &c. A proportion of this amount will, in due course, be repaid and appropriated in aid of the Land Commission Vote, i.e., when the under-sheriff or county registrar has collected the debt and costs, but no such recoupments are likely to come to hand in the current financial year.

The gross amount required in respect of the four sub-heads before-mentioned totals to £97,000 but anticipated savings under other sub-heads totalling to £40,000 are set off against it, reducing the amount of the Supplementary Estimate to the net figure of £57,000.

The anticipated savings are spread over various sub-heads, the principal items being: £9,000 on sub-head A (Salaries) due to vacancies caused by deaths and retirements, to a fall in the cost-of-living bonus for a portion of the year, and also to the operation of the Public Services (Temporary Economies) Act, 1933: £3,000 on sub-head B (Travelling Expenses, etc.), due mainly to vacancies, etc., and the amount of travelling being somewhat less than anticipated. There is also an anticipated saving of £3,000 on sub-head K (Payments under Sections 42 and 46 of the Land Act, 1927) due to arrears of annuities in certain land bank cases being funded under the Land Act of 1933, instead of being charged to this sub-head. As regards sub-head N (Advances in respect of Additional Sums payable by Purchasers under Section 28 (3) of the Land Act, 1923) and sub-head P (Advances to provide for the Maintenance of Embankments or other Works), the expenditure is always difficult to forecast with any degree of accuracy and a saving on each of these sub-heads of £1,500 on the amount provided in the original estimate is anticipated.

During the earlier portion of the year it was necessary to present two Supplementary Estimates for large amounts:—(a) sub-head S, £800,000, and (b) sub-head T, £1,420,000, in order (a) to meet deficiencies in the Land Bond Fund due to the funding of annuities, etc., payable under the Land Acts, 1923-31, for the first gale of 1933 and to the revision of these annuities for the second gale of 1933, and so to enable the fund to pay the half-year's interest on the Land Bonds payable on the 1st July, 1933, and on the 1st January, 1934, and (b) to relieve the Guarantee Fund of the charge which would otherwise have fallen on it in consequence of the funding of the annuities payable under the Land Acts, 1891-1909, for the first gale of 1933.

As it was impossible to estimate the exact amount of the deficiency in either case, the Supplementary Estimates were for bulk amounts, and it is expected that there will be a saving of £5,000 on the first Supplementary (sub-head S, £800,000) and £17,000 on the second Supplementary (sub-head T, £1,420,000).

It will be seen that both excesses and saving can, for the most part, be ascribed to the operations of the Land Act, 1933, which was passed on the 13th October last, and for which provision could not, of course, be made when the Estimates for the year 1933-34 were being prepared.

It is difficult to know from the Minister's statement what amount of money is actually required under the different sub-heads set out in the Estimate. I assume of course that the major portion of the money is required for the purpose of carrying out improvements in estates acquired by the Land Commission. I should like to know from the Minister where the money which was voted last year for that purpose, enabling him to carry out those improvements, has been spent. In what counties has that money been spent, and how much of the money has been spent in each of the different counties where land has been divided during the last ten or 11 months? I ask that question principally for this reason, that in one of the counties of the constituency which I represent, and in some of the neighbouring counties, scarcely any land distribution at all has taken place for the last two years. For that reason I am somewhat puzzzled to know how the £190,000 voted by the Dáil last year has been spent. I do know that a few months ago there was a special concentration on one county, the County Tipperary. That concentration I understand was due entirely to a rather violent agitation started there by certain individuals who seemed to be affected with land hunger in a rather pronounced way. Now that the leader of that agitation is comfortably installed in the Land Commission, I assume that there will be no occasion to spend any money on the improvement of estates in that county for some considerable time to come. I hope that the Minister will see his way to spend the money which is now about to be voted to him in some of the western counties where land distribution has been held up almost completely for the last two years. I hope the Minister, in replying, will be in a position to give the Dáil information as to the amount of money actually spent in those different counties where land distribution has taken place, and that at the same time he will give the Dáil some information as to the actual area of land divided in those counties where the money has been spent.

Again, I notice that there is an amount of £24,000 to be spent under a new sub-head of the Land Commission Vote. This new sub-head has been rendered necessary by a penal section which was introduced into the Land Act of 1933. This section gives the Land Commission power to issue warrants to the sheriffs or sub-sheriffs in the different counties for the purpose of executing decrees against unfortunate defaulters who are not in a position to meet their liabilities. I could not understand from the Minister's statement what amount of money, he proposes to spend under this particular sub-head between now and the end of the financial year. Does he propose to spend £24,000 for the purpose of defraying sheriffs' costs in executing decrees? If it is proposed to spend £24,000 between now and the end of the financial year, then I can only assume that the outstanding arrear of unpaid Land Commission annuities must be very large indeed. I should like to know from the Minister on what basis he has arrived at that figure of £24,000. Is it on the basis of the unpaid arrears of Land Commission annuities? If it is not on that basis, on what other basis has he arrived at the figure of £24,000? After all he has only a month in which to spend that amount of money, and, if the Land Commission will find it necessary to spend £24,000 in one month for the purpose of defraying the sheriffs' costs in executing decrees against unfortunate defaulters who have been reduced to such a position by Government policy that they are unable to meet their liabilities at the moment, then I say again that the amount of the outstanding arrears must certainly be very large.

The Minister, I think, further stated that he was hoping to recover some proportion of this money. That is certainly an interesting statement, but I think the Minister is unduly hopeful in that regard. Assuming that the sheriff does proceed to seize the cattle on the farms of unfortunate defaulters, and that he does put them up for sale, does the Minister for one moment imagine that they will realise anything approaching their market values? Does not the Minister know perfectly well that he will have pretty much the same experience as the Government recently had in trying to sell cattle here in the Dublin market—that he will have to sell them at 50 per cent., 60 per cent., 70 per cent. or 80 per cent. under their actual present-day value, and that there will not be a penny piece left for the purpose of defraying the expenses of executing those warrants? Under the next sub-head, Appropriations-in-Aid, there is one item which I do not understand. It refers to the repayment of advances in respect of additional sums. I notice that in the Supplementary Estimate here there is an amount of £8,700 provided for the deficiency this year. It is not very clear to me how that deficiency will arise, or how that deficiency can arise. In the original Estimate I think there was an amount of £33,700 provided. Is this deficiency due to the fact that the annuities are not being paid? In the ordinary normal way there should be no deficiency in respect of that particular item under sub-head R. The amount of £8,700 in regard to this particular item alone seems to be an abnormally high figure, and it certainly does require some explanation from the Minister. In respect of the other item, "Repayments of the late Congested Districts Board Loans," the Minister anticipates that there will be a loss of £700. Again, I cannot understand why there should be a loss of £700 in respect of that particular item. The most important item, as I said at the outset, is that in regard to the improvement of estates. I think it is due to the Dáil that the Minister should give some further information regarding the manner in which the money voted to him last year has been spent and why it was that there should be a special concentration on certain counties and why other counties have been ignored, with the result that scarcely any land distribution has taken place in these particular counties during the past two years.

Mr. Connolly

Deputy Roddy has raised several points, and the most important, I think, is his query with regard to improvement works. He wants to know the amount expended in certain counties, and he lays special stress on the County of Tipperary. I have a complete list of the expenditure from 1st April, 1933, to 31st December, 1933. The expenditure on improvement works up to 30th November, 1933, in Tipperary, was £9,050. The amount expended during the same period, in County Mayo was £47,305. The expenditure in the month of December, 1933, in Tipperary was £770 10s., and in the same month, in County Mayo, £3,908 3s. 1d. In other words, if we take the western counties, to which the Deputy is probably referring, we find that the total amount spent in Tipperary, to the end of December, 1933, was £9,821; in Roscommon, £20,775; in Mayo, £51,213; in Leitrim, £1,238, and in Galway, £30,183.

And Sligo?

Mr. Connolly

In Sligo, £5,575. The incidence of the expenditure is not based on anything except the progress that is being made with the particular type of development that is going on in the area but I think these figures will clearly indicate that no special preference has been shown to Tipperary, over any other county.

I assume from the figures which the Minister has quoted that in respect of Galway, he is including the money that is being spent on special reclamation schemes going on in that county and that he is also including, in the figure for Mayo, the money that is being spent on special reclamation schemes there, which is not, properly speaking, expenditure in connection with land distribution at all.

Mr. Connolly

The Deputy is quite right in that. But that represents but a very small fraction—the percentage of the expenditure on reclamation work is very slender indeed. The Deputy has also raised the question of the sheriff's fees and I think it is quite clear from the Land Act of 1933 what these represent. The sheriff's expenses are involved in the warrants that have to be issued to the sheriffs in lieu of the position following the 1933 Act where the ordinary court procedure is not adopted. Lodgment fees have to be lodged in anticipation of the action of the sheriffs in this connection. It is estimated, at the moment, that lodgment fees will be lodged on 98,000 defaulters. Deputies will be glad to know, however, that 357,000 farmers have paid their annuities to date. We have to provide these fees and it is expected that the refund which will come to the Appropriations-in-Aid will be considerable. We anticipate the collection of the big bulk of the amount of money which has to be lodged in the way of sheriffs fees at the moment. The Deputy has referred to the additional sum. I am satisfied that the Deputy understands, probably as well as anybody in this House, and better than most of us, what the additional sum represents. The additional sum is the amount payable by tenant purchasers to cover the gap that occurs between the date of the payment of the annuities and the date of the dividend warrants on the Land Bonds. This additional sum was first imposed by Section 28, sub-section (3) of the Land Act of 1923. Interest is payable to the Land Bond holders on 1st January and 1st July each year and it is to cover that period that this additional sum was fixed, and I think that the Deputy, who was in charge of the Land Commission, will remember just the arrangement that was made whereby this amount, which might have seemed a hardship on the allottees, or annuitants, at the time, was divided into six portions. When the annuities were being funded, this system could no longer be operated and, accordingly, the additional sum had to be accounted for and provided for, and in so far as that is the case, it forms portion of this Supplementary Estimate. I think those are the main points which the Deputy raised and I think I have answered him fully on them. If there are any other points on which he would like figures, I will, of course, be glad to supply them to him.

I asked for some figures relating to land distribution. Is the Minister in a position to give me approximately the amounts of money spent in the Counties of Galway and Mayo on special reclamation schemes, as distinct from moneys spent on improvement of estates?

Mr. Connolly

I am sorry I cannot give those figures to the Deputy at the moment but I shall be glad to send them to him.

It is very important and I think the Minister will appreciate that it is important. After all, up to last year enormous sums of money were spent on special reclamation schemes in both the Counties of Mayo and Galway. The Minister, apparently, in the figures he has given to me, has included the actual expenditure on reclamation schemes in both these counties, but the figures I want to get are the amounts actually spent on the improvement of estates and provided by the Land Commission during last year, as distinct from the moneys spent on these special reclamation schemes. The figures are quite valueless.

Mr. Connolly

I submit that the figures are not quite valueless, because the percentage which is spent on reclamation work compared with the total aggregate of the money spent, even within the county, is relatively small. The Deputy knows the amount of reclamation work that has gone on. I am sorry I have not a division of the figures by me at the moment but he knows as well as I know that the percentage spent on reclamation work within the Counties of Galway, Mayo and the other counties is but a very small fraction of the total amount expended. I cannot do better than arrange to have these figures for the Deputy, and if he wishes it they can be published.

Would the Minister give us the figures relating to land distribution?

Mr. Connolly

Do you mean the aggregate amount?

Mr. Connolly

I recently got the figures of the amount of land that was divided last year. I got them not for the purposes of this debate. The divided land amounted, roughly, to 36,000 acres. I have the figures here. The exact figures for 1933 are 35,264 acres. That is the total amount divided last year.

Has the Minister got the figures for each county separately?

Mr. Connolly

I have not the separate figures for each county.

Vote put and agreed to.
Top
Share