Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 28 Feb 1935

Vol. 55 No. 2

Vote 56—Land Commission (Resumed).

Question again proposed:—

That a Supplementary sum not exceeding £38,150 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending 31st March, 1935, 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; 33 and 38 of 1933; and 11 of 1934).

Mr. Roddy

I had not an opportunity of listening to the Minister's statement last evening, and I must rely on the rather meagre reports of the discussion which appeared in the daily papers. I notice that the Minister started off with the remark that the excess expenditure which he asks for in this Vote is, in the main, due to the greater activity of the Land Commission. That, certainly, is an interesting statement, and I can imagine the grim smile that must have come on the faces of even some of the Deputies behind the Minister, because the complaints about the slowness in dividing land are not confined to the Opposition Party here. They, in fact, are interested in the question only to a very slight extent. The complaints come mainly from the Minister's supporters. If the Minister read—and I am sure he has done so— the reports of meetings of the Fianna Fáil Executives which appeared in his own paper, the Irish Press, within the last few months, he will realise there is general discontent in the ranks of his own supporters at the delay in dividing land.

It is quite easy to understand why there should be so much discontent in view of the promises which were made by the party, of which the Minister is a member, before they were returned as the Government. We were told at one time that land distribution would proceed four times faster than under the previous Government. Notwithstanding that promise, we find now that land distribution is proceeding at a slower pace than at any other period since the 1923 Land Act was passed. It is very hard to get reliable figures on this subject. Figures have been given to the Dáil during the past few months and, when we compare them with the figures published in the Official Report, it is difficult to reconcile them. I have gone to the trouble of comparing the figures in the two last reports issued by the Land Commission, the reports for 1932-33 and for 1933-34, and I find on an average there were approximately 15,000 acres of land less distributed by the present Government than was distributed by the late Government during the last four or five years of their administration.

I think the Minister will recognise that the first year of his administration was a much better year than the present year is likely to be, because, so far as I can understand, until the last month or so there has been practically no activity whatsoever in the country in regard to the distribution of the land.

Practically all this money is required for the purpose of improving estates distributed by the Land Commission and the first thing that strikes me about this estimate is the abnormal increase that has taken place in the money usually granted for the purpose of improving estates. Normally, the figure up to last year was somewhere about £200,000. This year, including this supplementary estimate, the figure will be £330,000. At the outset, I should like to ask the Minister what all this money is required for and where and how is it to be spent? In view of the fact that land distribution is proceeding at a much slower rate than during the administration of the last Government, I cannot understand, and no member of this Party can understand, why the money asked for expenditure on improvement of estates should have increased from £200,000 to £330,000.

Normally this money is devoted towards the fencing, draining, making of roads, reconstruction of houses, and building of houses on estates actually divided, and, in addition, I assume, portion of the money is for the purpose of improving these holdings which have already been provisionally vested and which I hope will shortly be vested finally. So far as I can understand from Land Commission figures and reports, I cannot see that any substantial amount of money has been devoted to the improvement of holdings which are between the stage of provisional vesting and final vesting, so that it is only legitimate to assume that all this money at present is being devoted exclusively towards the improvement of estates which have been divided, or are being divided by the Land Commission. Certainly, an increase of £130,000, in view of the fact that the Land Commission presently is dividing at least 15,000 acres of land less than was divided during the administration of the late Government, requires some explanation.

The Minister's predecessor in charge of the Land Commission started his career by rushing his inspectors all round the country for the purpose of reporting on the suitability of holdings, whether large or small, for the purpose of acquisition. The inspectors were sent to these holdings regardless of the existing circumstances or conditions and, in some cases, holdings as low as £20 valuation, and even less, were reported on, with the result that a feeling of insecurity and uncertainty was created. As a matter of fact, in almost every case in which an inspector was sent to report on such a holding, the owner feels in the same degree of uncertainty and insecurity to-day. All the farms on the lists supplied by the Fianna Fáil clubs were reported on by the inspectors, I think, during that period and, if one is to judge by the things which are happening in the Land Commission to-day, the Fianna Fáil clubs to a very large extent dictate the policy of the Land Commission.

Land Commission inspectors are paid by the State to do a certain very important and very responsible work, but those inspectors have been sent round the country for the purpose of investigating the foolish, mean, and, in the majority of cases, the highly-prejudiced reports sent in by the secretaries and members of Fianna Fáil clubs. As I said, these men are paid by the State to do very important work, and it is a scandal that they should be made to do the political work of any Minister for the purpose of enquiring into complaints inspired purely and simply by Party motives. It is no wonder that land distribution is proceeding at such a slow rate when the time of the inspectors is devoted very largely to investigating complaints sent in by the secretaries and members of the Fianna Fáil clubs.

No matter how ridiculous or how foolish the complaint is, the Minister feels that he must send an inspector down the country to investigate that complaint. If a person working under a ganger engaged on a work of improvement is seen to be wearing a cap which bears any resemblance to a beret a report is usually sent in by the secretary or a member of the Fianna Fáil club and an inspector is solemnly sent out to report as to the reason why this man is employed and why he should be wearing such a cap. I have heard of one case where a man was wearing a cap which, probably, outwardly had the appearance of a beret, but which was really an ordinary cap with the peak turned inside. Some member of a Fianna Fáil club sent in a report to the Minister that this man was wearing a beret and, naturally, it was assumed he must be a member of a certain organisation which is not popular with the Minister or his Party. An inspector was sent out to report on what sort of a cap the man was wearing. One can readily and easily understand why land distribution is proceeding at such a slow pace when the Minister thinks it is his duty to investigate the foolish, mean, and contemptible complaints sent in by his supporters throughout the country.

There is another item here which occurs to me as being somewhat abnormal—the loss on untenanted land. I do not know what the actual estimated loss is, but whatever it may be, apparently that loss has been increased according to this Estimate by another £2,000. I realise perfectly well that the Land Commission did get certain additional powers under the Land Act of 1933 for the purpose of taking over possession of untenanted land before they were in a position to distribute it. The Minister, I think, must realise by now that such a policy is not a wise one and that if pursued at the present rate it will mean a huge loss of revenue to the State eventually. When the last Government was in power—and they managed things in a much more businesslike way than the present Government—there was a reasonably substantial loss on the management of untenanted land taken over before the Land Commission was actually in a position to divide it, and it was discovered that there was no advantage whatever to the Land Commission in taking over possession of land before the scheme was actually ready. I wonder if the Minister intends to pursue the policy, which he has been pursuing since he got control of the Land Commission, of taking over possession of untenanted land long before the scheme is ready for the distribution of that land. What happens as a general rule is that the land is let, probably to the man who originally owned it, or probably to some other man in the neighbourhood, but invariably at a loss. Certainly in the present circumstances of the country, I venture to think that in every case in which he has let land, of that kind, he has let it at a loss. If he continues that policy, of taking over land in the manner in which he is taking it over, does it not follow quite naturally that the loss in the management of such lands is bound to increase? After all, would it not be well for the Minister to take a leaf out of the book of his predecessors and withhold taking possession of such lands until such time as the scheme for the distribution of them is ready and thereby save the State a substantial sum of money?

There is one other item, a comparatively small sum of £300, for the purpose of making provision for the migration of certain people from the Gaeltacht to the County Meath. I understand the Minister has a scheme in readiness for the migration en masse of a big number of residents of the Gaeltacht to an estate which he has acquired in County Meath. It was always the policy of his predecessor to relieve congestion in the Gaeltacht but apparently the Minister is not satisfied with the methods pursued by his predecessors and he has embarked on an entirely new method. I wonder if the Minister has taken into consideration all the factors involved in a scheme of migration such as is now proposed? It was the policy of the late Government to pick out the big farmers in the Gaeltacht areas and to migrate them to counties like Meath, Westmeath, Kildare and Dublin. Quite a big number of such farmers were migrated during the last seven or eight years, and on the whole, that scheme worked quite satisfactorily. It was carried out at a minimum of cost. The Minister apparently has abandoned that method and he now proposes to migrate colonies of residents in the Gaeltacht to an estate or estates which he has acquired in the County Meath. I assume other estates will be acquired in neighbouring counties in course of time.

Has the Minister envisaged the possible consequences of such a scheme as that upon which he is now about to embark? It appears to me that such a scheme will involve a three-fold system of migration, that the cost will be enormous and that there is always the risk, a very grave risk, that such a scheme or schemes will fail. The Minister has the experience of the Congested Districts Board to fall back upon. They embarked many years ago on mass migration. They continued it for a certain number of years but eventually—and, mind you, these schemes were carried out under far better conditions than those under which the Minister will be able to carry out his schemes—after a few years they abandoned these schemes of migration because they recognised that they were not, and could not be, a success. Has the Minister considered the conditions under which the people he proposes to migrate are living at the present time and the conditions under which they will have to live after they are migrated, probably to the very best lands, in Meath, Westmeath or Kildare, as the case may be? How can any landless man, say, who is half fisherman and half farmer, and who has been accustomed all his life to work and live on the bad land of Connemara, ever be expected to be a success under entirely new conditions on a completely different class of land in County Meath?

Mr. Davin

Hear, hear. Why did you try it?

Mr. Roddy

I did not try it.

Mr. Davin

You brought them into Offaly.

Mr. Roddy

If the Deputy had been listening to me, he would have heard me explain what happened.

Mr. Davin

You brought them from Kerry to Offaly.

Mr. Roddy

If the Deputy had been listening to me he would have heard me explain that it was the big farmers we migrated. Of course he is always anxious to score a point for his friends. I explained quite clearly that during the lifetime of the last Government it was their policy to migrate the big farmers from the Gaeltacht areas, and to divide the land which they had left behind, amongst the smaller type of farmer because it appeared to us that the big farmer had a better chance of succeeding on the lands of Meath or Westmeath than the smaller man who probably never left his own immediate neighbourhood or at most had only travelled a short distance from it. The big farmer, on the other hand, was in the habit of attending fairs round the country and even of attending the Dublin markets occasionally. He understood conditions in the eastern counties and there was therefore a better chance of his succeeding when migrated to these counties.

The Minister proposes migrating not alone the big men, but in addition, to take away the small men. He will establish them as a colony somewhere in Meath on a class of land to which they have never been accustomed and on which they can never hope to succeed. I agree that something must be done to relieve conditions in the Gaeltacht, but I believe he is pursuing the wrong method, a method which is going to cost this State an enormous expenditure of money, and a method which, it appears to me, cannot succeed no matter what assistance, whether in the way of officials or of money, the Minister is prepared to give these people.

There is just one other point. In the distribution of land, latterly, I notice that the tendency is to distribute the land amongst landless men and workers. Is that the policy which the Minister proposes to continue in future? What becomes of the problem of congestion? After all, land is acquired for the purpose of relieving congestion. There are, in every part of the country, men living on very small and very congested holdings but judging by the manner in which the activities of the Land Commission have developed recently in the distribution of land, it seems to me, no matter how low a man's valuation may be, if he is in possession of any land at all, he is not likely to get any addition to his holding and the land for distribution is to be given exclusively to landless men and workers. I admit that these men are entitled to land according to the provisions of the Land Acts but I hold also that land should be acquired mainly for one purpose and that is for the relief of congestion. I wonder is it to be the policy of the Land Commission in future to depart from the principle enshrined in the Land Act of 1923, namely to distribute land for the relief of congestion, and if, in future, they are going to give it exclusively to landless men and workers?

Mr. Davin

Unlike Deputy Roddy, I think the Minister is entitled to be commended for asking for the additional sum that he seeks in this Estimate, because I assume that all the additional money asked for, under the subhead referring to the improvement of the estates, will be spent in a useful manner. Whether it is going to increase the expenditure per acre of the land divided, as compared with what was expended when Deputy Roddy had responsibility, is a different matter altogether. I believe, from any knowledge I have, that most of the money goes in wages to workers for carrying out useful work. I am certain that if additional money per acre is being spent by the present Minister, it is going to produce better results from the point of view of the productivity of the land later on.

I have been looking through the returns furnished by the Minister to the members of this House recently, showing the acreages of land divided in all the counties of the Free State in 1925. On going through the list I find that during the three years prior to the late Government leaving office the acreage divided in Leix was 3,238 acres, which were handed over to 73 tenants. During two and a half years, 1932-1934, since the present Government came into office, the acreage divided in the same county was 924 acres between 51 tenants. In Offaly the acreage divided during the last three years that the previous Government was in power 4,518 acres were divided amongst 116 persons, while since this Government came into office, from 1932-1934, the acreage divided was 2,874 acres amongst 87 tenants. There is something in these figures to show that the progress made since this Government came into office has not been at the same rate as was made by their predecessors. On that point I want to hear definitely from the Minister whether this is due to the fact that the Land Commission has not had on the outdoor or the indoor staffs the numbers necessary to deal with the situation that exists. I read a speech that the Minister for Lands made lately at Portlaoighise, in which he indicated that a far greater rate of progress would be made within the next two years than was made during the last three years. According to the figures quoted by the Minister more progress will be made next year if his promises are fulfilled than was made during the last two and a half years that the late Government was in power.

From the information I have received I warn the Minister that if that promise is to be carried out additional staff will have to be provided to carry out the increased work. It is only fair to the Land Commission staff that if additional work has to be done the necessary staff should be provided. I am sure Deputy Donnelly can confirm what I say that there is a considerable amount of unrest—which was not created by me—in that area, as a result of the failure of the Land Commission to make greater progress than has been made during the last two or three years. The complaints come generally from the supporters of the Fianna Fáil Party. Strange to say, in a few areas of Leix the agitation in connection with this matter has been created mainly by recent recruits to the Republicans or to the Fianna Fáil Party. I can quote instances to prove what I am saying in that respect. I know areas where people were invited to become members of the local Fianna Fáil clubs on the understanding that every member would get land. I should not feel comfortable if I was in the position of a Minister who had any responsibility for promises of that kind, because I think in a year or two it will be found that probably 10 per cent. of those who joined Fianna Fáil clubs believed that they would be amongst the lucky numbers when big estates are being divided. There is going to be a reaction from that, and I recommend Deputy Donnelly particularly to discourage such activity in my constituency. Speaking as a representative of that constituency since this House was established, I say that one of the most dangerous things anyone could do would be to promise people that they would get something that there was no hope of getting.

Mr. Donnelly

The estates are there.

Mr. Davin

It is quite true that there is considerable acreage of land available, but if it is to be divided at the rate of progress expected by some of Deputy Donnelly's supporters an additional staff will have to be appointed for the purpose. I hope Deputy Donnelly will do all he can to ginger up the Minister on that aspect of the situation. I have read reports of meetings which were held in the constituency, some of which Deputy Donnelly attended. These meetings were confined largely to those who claimed to be members of the old I.R.A., at which lavish promises were held out that these people would get first preference in the division of estates. I want the Minister to touch on that matter when replying, and to indicate the nature of the preference likely to be given to those who claim to be members of the old I.R.A. I should like to have from him a definition of what the old I.R.A. means, in order to qualify for a holding of land in preference to anyone else. Does membership of the old I.R.A. mean persons who had active pre-Truce service, or is it understood to mean those who were never heard of until the civil war started in that constituency? I want the Minister to make the position clear, so that people may not be disillusioned later on, and perhaps create a good deal of trouble for Ministers and for those who held out such inducements. I am definitely in favour of giving a decided preference in positions or holdings to persons who had active pre-Truce service. Many farmers' sons in this State who sacrificed their time and perhaps their prospects of better positions in life are entitled to consideration for these sacrifices.

I do not know exactly what the order of preference is to be for people to whom promises have been held out. I hope the Minister for his own sake and in order to save trouble in future will make the position clear. I want to know the period and the nature of the service which entitles people to consideration when estates are being divided. I read a speech that Deputy Donnelly made recently at Abbeyleix. in which he gave the order of preference to be followed in the giving of land to suitable persons. He seemed to indicate that landless people were to get first preference. I had a question on the Order Paper yesterday, asking the Minister to indicate the order of preference that was to be adopted towards those entitled to consideration. and the Minister's reply does not altogether coincide with the Deputy's speech.

Mr. Donnelly

It does not follow that I am wrong.

Mr. Davin

I am sure the Deputy's speech was reported accurately, as from my reading of it it was carefully prepared. If he compares it with the reply given me by the Minister he will see that there is a little difference between the two statements.

Mr. Donnelly

Give the quotation.

Mr. Davin

I am referring to it because I want the Minister to make the position clearer than he made it in the reply he gave me. Are those entitled to first preference in the division of land people who lost their employment as a result of the acquisition of estates? Those who lost employment as a result of any Act passed by this House generally received some compensation. It is hardly necessary, I suppose, in view of the Minister's reply, for him to repeat that assurance. Taking the order of preference for people entitled to get holdings when estates are being divided, I want to tell the Minister that if suitable landless men are to get the consideration to which they are entitled, having regard to their suitability for working land, they must be put in a position to be able to get the necessary capital to work whatever land is given them by the Land Commission.

It is quite unfair to a herd, a ploughman or other suitable landless man to give him 30 or 40 acres of land in one of the midland counties and make no provision to enable him to buy a plough or a horse, or other equipment to work the land. I would like to say—I hope other Deputies will support the proposal if they believe it to be right— that it is the duty of a Government, which is proposing to make greater progress in the division of land, to give more of it to suitable landless men and, in addition, to provide loans, free of interest, for, say, a period of three or five years to enable them to stock the land, and provide themselves with farming equipment.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Is the Deputy not now discussing policy on the Estimate?

Mr. Davin

I will leave that to the Chair to decide.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

If a Deputy does I will give him very short shrift.

Mr. Davin

I understand there are some estates of very considerable acreage about to be acquired in my constituency and taken over by the Forestry Department. In some cases, as a result of this, a considerable number of men will be deprived of employment. I was assured recently that on one estate which is to be divided within the next few weeks 20 people lost their employment some two years ago. A number of these people have no capital. It has been put to me and to the Minister that in cases where people lost their employment and are going to get a small acreage of land, the Minister should, where possible, give a preference to them as regards any work undertaken on these estates by the Forestry Department. That is a form of compensation to which these people are justly entitled.

I would also like to say to the Minister—I am not sure that it is necessary for me to do so—that where land is being divided in the vicinity of labourers' cottages a small additional acreage should be given to the cottage occupiers. I would like to see these occupiers, whether they be road workers or agricultural labourers, having, say, three acres for tillage purposes and two acres for the grass of a cow and a few calves. I hope, too. that the Minister will make provision for playing pitches for the local G.A.A. clubs. There is a demand in the midland counties for suitable playing pitches. The majority of G.A.A. clubs have very little money, and, therefore, I think the Minister and the Land Commission might give sympathetic consideration to any applications they receive for playing pitches in areas where a land distribution scheme is being carried out.

I also desire to bring to the notice of the Minister the position of large numbers of people living in towns which are convenient to estates that may be divided in the coming years. Steps should be taken to make suitable provision for turbary rights for these people. There are bogs on quite a number of these estates, and care should be taken to provide turbary rights for those living in towns convenient to them. On the question of migration, Deputy Roddy referred to the policy of the previous Government on this matter. If a large farmer, coming from County Kerry or the County Mayo to the Counties of Leix or Offaly or to Kilkenny or North Tipperary, fails to make good under the arrangements made by the previous Government, I cannot see how a small holder, with no experience of working a large acreage of land, coming from the same areas, can teach anybody anything in the new district in which he takes up residence. I want to express my personal opposition to people from Kerry or the western counties coming to Leix or Offaly until the uneconomic holders and the suitable landless men living in these counties are first provided for. We have had experience of some Kerry people being brought to North Offaly, and I must say that they have been an absolute failure in the working of land there. They could not teach anything to anybody in that district, and they were not able to learn anything from the people around them. The policy with regard to migrants that was put into operation by the previous Government was an absolute failure. I think it is only fair to suggest that the deserving landless men and uneconomic holders in the counties I have been speaking of should have first preference of any land that becomes available, and that people should not be brought from other counties and put on that land by leaving the local people unprovided for.

Mr. Corry

I would like, first of all, to refer to the statement that was made this evening by Deputy Roddy. He said, speaking of the policy of the Minister, that until within the last month there had been no activity on the part of the Land Commission in distributing land. Deputies should remember that the present Minister has only been in charge of this Department for a little over 12 months. Therefore, I do not think that Deputy Roddy had any ground for his complaint. The Deputy further stated that he hoped the Minister would take a leaf out of the book of his predecessors. I have a sad memory of the policy pursued by the previous Government, and, therefore, I hope the Minister will not follow their example.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy may only discuss the activities of the present Minister on this Estimate.

Mr. Corry

I will come to that.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy is not going to discuss the administration of the previous Minister?

Mr. Corry

Certainly not. This is the case of tenants in Glandore where 20 acres were taken over from a man named Hurley for the relief of congestion. He got a farm of 130 acres down in my part of the country, in Watergrasshill.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

When did all this happen?

Mr. Corry

The transaction is not yet finished.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy can only discuss the administration of the present Minister on this Estimate. He cannot go back and discuss the administration of a previous Minister.

Mr. Corry

I want to deal with the administration of the present Minister with regard to this particular holding.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy cannot deal with the history of this particular farm on this Estimate.

Mr. Corry

Cannot this holding, which has been lying there for nine or ten years, be discussed?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We can discuss the activities of the present Minister in connection with that particular farm, but we cannot go back on its history in order to discuss the activity or inactivity of another Minister.

Mr. Corry

As I pointed out before, this 20-acre farm has been lying there since 1925. There are six tenants there, the largest holding being 20 and the smallest four acres.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

What did the present Minister do about it?

Mr. Brennan

Nothing.

Mr. Corry

He did, and that is what I want to come to. This gentleman is an example of what becomes of migrants, and must we not discuss examples so that we may know what to do with them in future? This migrant spent seven years in the holding. He paid one year's annuity. He was then taken away bag and baggage. This 20-acre holding, taken over for the relief of congestion in 1925, has since been a paradise for bullocks. So much for the footsteps of his predecessors.

Mr. MacDermot

What has the Minister done about it?

Mr. Corry

The whole thing was lying there for seven years, surrounded by farms of from 25 to four acres. It was visited at least 100 times by inspectors, so that it was pretty well paid for so far as expenses were concerned. Then, we have to take this migrant from Watergrasshill and transfer him to a little bit of Paradise in Glandore. With regard to the present Administration, I have a complaint to make. During the past 15 months, in one parish in my constituency there are 3,000 acres awaiting division. Those 3,000 acres are in the hands of five persons who make them a paradise for bullocks which are, I believe, no longer in paradise. These lands are surrounded by three parishes of small holders who, in my opinion, are the best persons who could be given land—ex-I.R.A. men who fought for their country from 1916 onwards. There are, in many cases, three or four sons on a small holding of twenty acres—men with experience of land and who, given some machinery and a little bit of capital, would work the land. I can see no reason why those 3,000 acres should be lying there as a paradise for bullocks. These lands are giving no employment and the tenants are evading their responsibilities and not paying their annuities. I should like to know what particular cog in the Land Commission machine I must oil or ginger up to get that part of the country divided.

Mr. Norton

The one nearest to you.

Mr. Belton

That is very hard on the Minister.

Mr. Corry

We are told by Deputy Davin to join Fianna Fáil clubs in order to get these things done. All I can say is that if this is not done in one way it will be done in another.

Mr. Belton

Remember Arbour Hill.

Mr. Corry

There are some of Deputy Belton's friends in Arbour Hill already. I hope he has not the idea of putting me in with them.

Mr. Belton

I would not think of doing that.

Mr. Corry

You put poor Brazier in there.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy must not make irrelevant remarks.

Mr. Corry

I am sorry but, when one is interrupted, one cannot help saying these things. I am aware that pressure has been brought to bear and that inspectors have been removed from County Cork to two other counties to divide up land there. I consider that the position in Cork County is such that the Minister should take serious notice of it. Ranches are lying idle and steps are being taken by these gentlemen to get clear of their responsibilities by selling those places so as to be beforehand with the Land Commission and prevent the Commission taking them over. These small holders are entitled to have this land divided up. I consider that those farms of from 500 to 600 acres, amounting in all to 3,000 acres, the tenants of which are evading their responsibilities and not paying their land annuities, should be taken over. I want that matter attended to by the Minister.

Mr. Norton

The redeeming portion of this Supplementary Estimate is the provision made for the expenditure of additional sums of money on the improvement of estates. The House generally will congratulate the Minister on a forward move in that direction. I am sorry that this additional expenditure on the improvement of estates is not going hand in hand with accelerated acquisition and distribution of land. I do not think the Minister's record, so far, is such that one is entitled to look upon it with any pride so far as the acquisition and distribution of land are concerned. I have read some of the recent speeches of the Minister on the question of land acquisition and distribution and, while they are commendable from the point of view of showing good intentions on the part of the Minister, one has got to realise that even land will not be divided merely by the expression of good intentions.

Mr. Connolly

Would it not be well to wait and hear the report?

Mr. Norton

I was expecting to hear the report from the Minister when making his case for the passing of this Estimate.

Mr. Connolly

You will hear it now.

Mr. Norton

I shall be very interested to hear it. The Minister might be encouraged to move forward more rapidly if he adverted to the statistics furnished to the House on the 13th February in reply to a Parliamentary question. From those we can see that land distribution has been on a much slower scale than in previous years. On the 28th November, 1934, I was informed by the Minister as to the progress of land acquisition and division in the Co. Kildare. The information furnished me in reply to a Parliamentary question was of a very disappointing character. It showed that the whole policy of the Land Commission during the last couple of years in the matter of acquisition and distribution of land has slowed up considerably. Taking the year 1933-34, we find that 764 acres were acquired and 942 distributed in County Kildare. One would imagine that there was no such thing as the Land Commission in existence when one finds only 942 acres distributed in a ranching county such as Kildare is. If we look at the national statistics. instead of statistics for individual counties, we find that the record of land distribution, so far, is extremely poor. Whatever the Minister is going to tell us in his report, I hope there is going to be a substantial improvement in the very slow rate of progress in this respect which has so far taken place. The Minister cannot be unaware that there is considerable disappointment throughout the country at the apparent slothfulness of the Land Commission in acquiring and dividing land. I think that even at the Ard-Fheis of the Minister's Party a resolution was passed expressing disappointment at the activities of the Land Commission in that regard, notwithstanding a gallant effort to defeat the resolution. Deputies who express their disappointment with the Land Commission in this respect are in pretty good company these days, because even the Minister's own Party, whatever else they may say for the Government's achievements in other directions, cannot, apparently, be induced to work up any enthusiasm for the acquisition and distribution policy which is being pursued by the Land Commission. In the constituency of Kildare, so far as I can discover, there are only two Land Commission inspectors. They are very courteous and helpful gentlemen, and I have no complaint to make against them personally. Rather would I like to see the efforts of these gentlemen supplemented and further inspectorate staff allocated for acquisition and distribution work in that county.

In County Kildare, there are ranches running into hundreds of acres. Some of them comprise almost 1,000 acres. Those ranches are scarcely grazed. Practically no part of this land is tilled and there appears to me to be in the existence of these ranches a very fruitful opportunity, not merely to take people off the labour market in the towns and urban areas and settle them on the land but to provide employment for additional people and provide additional food for the nation instead of being compelled to import that food as at present. We have appeals from Departments to grow more wheat and beet and generally to produce a better balanced agricultural economy. But when we look at the record of the Land Commission in making its activities somewhat complementary to that policy, we find that very little is being done to encourage the policy of tillage, which is advocated by other Ministers and other Departments of Government. If the tillage policy is to be a success, it is absolutely imperative that the ranches should be broken up. It is absolutely imperative that the plough should be put into the broad acres. In County Kildare, where the broad acres abound side by side with landless men and uneconomic holders, we find very little being done, so far, to break up the ranches and reintroduce the plough to the land. I hope that the Minister, in the reply which he has promised us, will tell us that, whatever of the past, the policy of the future will be one of much more rapid acquisition and much more rapid distribution of land. If the Minister does that, I think he can be assured of the warm co-operation and goodwill of all the Deputies in the House. If there is one thing more than another calculated to stop the drift into the towns, it is the settlement of people on economic holdings. A policy of that kind is calculated not merely to stop overcrowding in town dwellings but to stop the glutting of the labour market in the towns. It is calculated to produce a better balanced agricultural economy and also to enrich the nation by producing more food. The Minister has within his grasp opportunities for improving, on a scale never previously dreamt of, the agricultural economy of the country. I hope that, in the reply he is to give us, he will tell us that the good intentions with which his speeches bristle will be translated into action and that we may look forward to land acquisition and distribution on a much more rapid scale than we have known in the past.

Mr. Curran

I have just heard Deputy Norton advocate the dividing up of the land to prevent the "drift into the towns." I am particularly interested in that phrase. It would be well if Deputy Norton, and perhaps other Deputies, would ask themselves why this drift into the towns has taken place. It has taken place because there is no living on the land at present. Farmers' sons, workmen and others have moved into the towns because of the depression that exists in the agricultural industry. It was not on that point that I intended to speak. I desired to ascertain from the Minister what the policy of the Government is in connection with the price paid for land. I have before me a letter to a widow, with five children, who has a small shop in a town. She has 82 acres of land and the Land Commission have offered her £322 for that land.

Mr. Belton

82 acres ?

Mr. Curran

82 acres of land for which she has been offered £322 in Land Bonds. That would be something around £15 a year. Is that the policy of the Land Commission ? Is it the policy of the Land Commission to take over a farm of the value of about £15 a year? Speaking of the Land Com mission and the division of land, I know of an estate taken over by the late Government. A good part of that land was divided, and it was somewhat similar to land that was divided in the past. What was the policy of the Land Commission ? A certain part of it was left there in connection with big buildings that were to be erected on it. What the Land Commission are doing now is to plant trees on perfectly arable land. One would imagine that there were plenty of other uses for it except that of planting trees on it. These are the points that I am trying to make generally, and I should like a reply from the Minister as to what the attitude of the Government is in connection with what they are going to pay farmers when they take over the land. I do not want to criticise the Government as to their attitude in taking over land, but I say that, if land has to be acquired, it is only reasonable to expect that those who have been in occupation of it should get a reasonable price for it. Nobody would say that £15 a year for such an acreage of land is a reasonable price or anything approaching a reasonable price. These are some of the things about which I should like to have an assurance from the Land Commission.

There is another case that came to my notice recently. A man bought a farm and paid all the money he had for it. As a matter of fact, he paid £500 for about 30 or 40 acres—a little more or less. He has been in occupation of that land for the last three or four years at least, but the Land Commission has refused to accept him as a tenant. Maybe he did not have the sanction of the Land Commission before he took the land. But even if he did not have their sanction for his little holding—even if he did outstep the law —I consider that it is an ill-advised step of the Land Commission to refuse to sanction him as a tenant. What is the attitude they are going to adopt towards such a man? If that is their attitude they will find that it will prove a very difficult problem. These are the points that, I think, the Minister should bear in mind when he is replying and I should like some clear-cut decision on that point.

Mr. Belton

In the light of the extra money asked for in this Vote, the information given by Deputy Curran is very illuminating. He told us that the sum of £323 was paid for 82 acres of, I presume, reasonably good land. Now, I take up item J of this Estimate and I find that it reads: "Advance to meet deficiency of income from untenanted lands purchased under the Land Acts of 1923-33, £2,000." The original Estimate was for £10,000 and the revised Estimate is for £12,000 for the year. This £2,000 extra is required to meet the loss on this land held by the Land Commission. I wonder was that land bought at the current price mentioned by Deputy Curran. If land at such a price, in the hands of such experts as the present Government, necessitates raiding the ratepayers' pockets to make up a loss of £2,000 this year, I wonder whether we are not really wasting out time, in these circumstances, when we talk of the acquisition and division of lands at all.

Deputy Norton wants to see the tillage policy of the Government a success. He wants to build a Chinese wall around the towns and cities of Ireland to keep the country people on the land. Deputy Norton need not be one bit afraid of people wanting to come into the towns and cities, if they can get a living on the land. In the natural ebb and flow of economic conditions people are driven to the towns and cities owing to the conditions that obtain. Here we have a demand for more money to plant men on the land when we know they will drift back again, in the conditions that prevail, towards the towns and the cities. Deputy Norton and Deputy Davin talked about economic holdings. I would like the Minister for Lands, or some one, to give us a definition of an economic holding at the present time. At no time in this country, in connection with land legislation was there unanimity as to what an economic holding was. A holding to be economic must be in the track of trade. Where is the trade in this country at present to make any holding an economic holding? I know holdings of a couple of hundred acres of land and the owners are not able to pay the rates and annuities upon them. Of course, there are armchair farmers who would tell us how that land could be used not merely to make it pay outgoings, but to return a handsome profit. Let them get into the line and prove it.

Now, as to the division of land, we have had suggestions thrown out in the course of this debate as to the people who should and the people who should not get land. Of course, I agree that those who have sacrificed some of the best years of their lives to the welfare of the country should not be forgotten. Unfortunately, many of them have been long forgotten. But remember when planting men on the land at the public expense it is only sound business to see that such men know their job. I have not yet seen. either under this Administration, or the past Administration, or the British administration of the Land Commission that they made that an outstanding feature of their policy. When giving portions of land to men the knowledge at the disposal of the Land Commission should be such that they would expect such men to make a success of the land they got.

It often struck me as extraordinary that notwithstanding that we have a Department of Agriculture in this country functioning for about 30 years, and that there has evolved, in recent years, a system of rural education, and that evening classes and the county committees of agriculture have been established, the Land Commission does not co-operate with those committees and see that those evening agricultural classes are made a success. We have several such classes not only in Dublin but in various parts of the country set up at public expense. Why not develop them? I do not think the system is sufficiently developed. Why not take a further step in a practical direction and standardise the knowledge acquired and disseminated in those evening classes, by the issue of certain certificates? Why not then give these young men who have acquired those certificates plots of land which they would be capable of working? There you would be offering an inducement to young men to attend these classes and to obtain these certificates. Who is it that gets a plot of land at the present time? Let us come down to practical politics. It is the camp followers of political parties that get them and it is not to-day that that happened. It happened back in the British time and with what result? Ranches were divided up at public expense. I saw in many cases myself the cycle concluded, and the land that had been broken up gone back again through various stages to be ranches. I could take Deputies to one district where that happened not five miles from where we are sitting at the present moment. The land was broken up; it was parcelled out; houses were built on it, but the people sold them and the land is gone back again into a ranch simply because suitable people were not selected on the first instance and given the land.

I would like to see some co-ordination between the Department of Agriculture, the county committees of agriculture and the Land Commission. Why not evolve a scheme in the Land Commission for the subdividing of land whereby a servant boy who had hired out with a farmer, for a few years, and saved a few pounds, should get a piece of land? If the amount he had saved was only £20 it would give him heart in his work. But if you give anything to anybody for nothing the same value will never be put upon it as would be on a piece of property in which one's own money was invested. I commend that to the Minister for Lands, and to the Land Commission, for their consideration. Get a man on to the land who has put something into it and the greatest incentive to him is to have invested in it some of the money he earned himself.

I wonder is it the Government's view — and it seems to be from the case which Deputy Curran has cited here as to the scrap price of land— that the present market price for land is the price they should give and, if so, do they hold that land now is at as high a value as it will ever be in the future? If that is their view, it is a sad commentary on their administration because there is really no market for land now. We have been confronted with the buying of land for labourers' cottages for the board of health in County Dublin, but we do not go upon the present prices because we consider that present prices are not fair to anybody. They are prices that ruled during a period of abnormal world depression to which is added an artificial depression from other causes, which there is no need to mention. That is not the time for any local authority, much less for a department of the Government, to use the compulsory powers at their disposal to force people to part with their land at scrap prices, at ruinous prices.

I presume that this land mentioned by Deputy Curran is average land. Everybody knows that 82 acres of land would give a fair living, but what kind of a living will £320 invested, even in National Loan, give? That is the value of land. I am sure that land was worth a couple of thousand pounds a few years ago. If you are going to measure the value of your Administration to the country by that depreciation on land, I am afraid you would not commend yourself as a useful Government. However, I make these suggestions without reference to present abnormal conditions and I suggest to the Minister that the dividing up of ranches must not be actuated by a desire merely for breaking up big ranches, but a desire to plant more people on the land who will make a success of that plantation and to ensure that the whole transaction will be nationally sound, nationally productive and show a national advance. You must select your people; you must have regard to the quality of the people you are planting there. Nobody would be more anxious than I to plant an ex-I.R.A. man on the land, but I would not plant him on it unless he was fit for it. If you want to compensate him for the services he gave the country, compensate him in some other way. I would not put a round peg in a square hole or a square peg in a round hole, or whatever the phrase is. You would not be doing that man, to whom the country owes something, a service if you put him into something he was not suited for. He will be a failure in a few years and when he fails, is he in a better position? Has he improved in the estimation of his friends? Of course, he has not, and the respect in which they now hold him would be lessened in a few years if you put him into a job in which he will fail.

I am quite sure that the Minister will look at that in a business way and that where he has men before him, all equal, all fit to be planted on the land, he will not overlook the ex-I.R.A. man for anybody else. Generally, I would suggest to the Minister that in respect of migrants and people from the Gaeltacht or anywhere you like, he has a job to do. He is spending huge sums of money acquiring land, splitting it up and planting people on it to be farmers and it is his job, so far as he can, to make them successful farmers. Let them show some qualification and aptitude for the job he is giving them and if he does, the future will thank him and appreciate his services. If he does not look to the quality of the people, but puts them in merely because of political reasons or because they are friends of some friend or something like that, without qualifications or aptitude for farming, he will be wasting public money and he will not improve agriculture nor will he improve the country. It would be much better to leave it growing good grass, even though it is a ranch—and I am not a rancher. It is better to have the land growing good grass than to have it growing weeds and weeds you will have if you put in the weed of a farmer. I hope the Minister, in order to keep the land from growing weeds. will not plant farmer weeds on the divided ranches. Again, I would impress upon him, as a final matter, that he should devise some scheme whereby he will get men who have some money of their own. I will give an example, with permission of the Chair. The Minister for Local Government knows this to be a fact and my friend, Deputy Tom Kelly, will agree with me in this. We, in the Dublin Corporation, have built large colonies of houses around the city. We have let them on the purchase system at an initial loss. The people purchased them over a number of years. They had to pay nothing at the start and we sold them on the purchase system at prices lower than what they cost us. For instance, if they cost us £500, we sold them for £400 on an annuity basis. There has been a tremendous loss, running into thousands, apart from the initial loss, on those houses, owing to arrears. On the other hand, we have lent about £1,500,000 under the Small Dwellings Act. The people were required to have a little money of their own at the start and we have not had .5 of a loss Is that not right. Deputy Kelly.

Mr. T. Kelly

Quite correct.

Mr. Belton

I do not say that analogy is perfect, but it gives the House an idea of what I want to convey. It is not so much a question of the size of the money I should like to see the Land Commission asking for, but a question of helping servant boys who have saved a little money at farm work, and have put their savings into a piece of land. The Land Commission should welcome such applicants, and I strongly commend that point of view to the Minister. There are also the cases in different parts of the country of the sons of small farmers whose little piece of land is not sufficient to keep them when they grow up. They go out—the thing has developed naturally in all parts of the country—and take a bit of grazing, a few acres for cattle. Surely that is not ranching. It is just one of the activities of a small farmer's family in their endeavour to make a living and to develop. Where small families have shown such activities—where they have shown such enterprise—it should be a matter that ought to commend itself to the Minister in their favour. I am sure that the Minister is not without channels that he can tap to provide him with information about such people. I would be glad to hear the Minister on that matter.

Mr. Beegan

On this matter of the division of land and the workings of the Land Commission I would like to say a few words as to my experience in regard to the County Galway. I have heard a great deal about the slow progress which the Land Commission is making. But I would remind the House that when the 1923 Land Act was passing through the Oireachtas. Deputies on the opposite benches did everything in their power to insert amendments in the Bill—amendments which would make land division very much slower than it is.

We have got the figures of the number of acres of land divided in 1932, 1933 and 1934. At any rate, we have got sufficient information to know that at least some land has been divided. After all the criticism that has been offered there has not been a single specific case mentioned in which the land was given to an unsuitable tenant. or where it was given because of political preferences. In Galway County recently a few estates have been divided and remarks have been made in regard to the preference given in the allocation of the land. As to the system followed, I mention one particular estate, that of the Earl of Westmeath. On that estate none of the people living in the immediate neighbourhood made any representations to have the lands taken over. That was because the estate was being properly worked by the then owner. But it passed on to another who did not give the employment that had been given on the estate. Consequently the lands were offered for sale. Then the Land Commission stepped in.

On that estate, there were 33 employees, all of whom had experience of employment on an estate worked on a mixed farming system. Each of these employees was given first preference in the division, after them came the congests within a radius of two miles of the estate. Amongst the congests who were applying for a part of the estate no one whose poor law valuation exceeded by a few shillings £10 a year was considered. Only applicants under a £10 valuation were brought in. The people in the area are quite satisfied that the estate was divided quite fairly and that there was no political discrimination. They are satisfied that the people entitled to it got a share of the land. Now, all the employees did not get land, nor are all the employees on other estates that are divided given land. The greatest care is being taken in the selection of the tenants.

The Land Commission officials, in making their selection, have gone so far as to demand from the applicants positive proof by way of the production of bank deposits, or evidence of the number of live stock they have or things of that kind. I know of another estate also where congests were provided for and where only two landless men were given land. Both these landless men were men with experience. They had large families, and I might mention that both were of different political opinions. As regards the I.R.A. adjoining the Westmeath estate, not one of them got a perch of land. The land was given only to people who came within the terms of reference— congests and employees.

There is one thing that I would put very strongly to the Minister, and that is as regards the valuation of congests. I know some tenants whose poor law valuation is in excess of £10, and I know some of these people have not as much as one perch of arable land. That land, in the past, was all right for grazing cows and for producing hay when tillage was not as profitable as it is now and as it will be in the future. I would like, if the Minister would allow, in such cases, some discretion to the Land Commission officials who are preparing schemes of allotment, so that these very deserving people may be given four or five acres of arable land. Those congests living in close proximity to an estate about to be divided would have their condition very much improved by a few acres of good arable land. I can assure the Minister that if he and his officials carry on as they have begun that he need not go to Donegal to be met with brass bands. He will be met in Galway with brass bands and pipers' bands also.

Mr. O'Leary

Deputy Norton appealed to all Parties to co-operate in making the division of estates a success. I, too, would like to make the same appeal. I have always believed that the land is the mainstay of the people of this country. I quite agree with Deputy Belton that the question of whether a man is ex-I.R.A., or Blueshirt, a Fianna Fáil supporter or a United Ireland supporter should not arise in the division of land. The question of the applicant's capability is the most important question of all. I think the Minister should look around and examine what has happened in the past with regard to the division of land. In that way he would find out the success or otherwise of the systems of division followed.

In my constituency, portion of which is in the Gaeltacht, there are a great many young farmers' sons and a good many farm labourers who have by their industry saved £200, £300 or £400. These people have probably not got enough money to buy a farm but I am sure if they were invited to take up farms in different parts of the country where the land is available they would be most willing to do so. I advocated their claims in the time of the late Government. I know the difficulty the late Government had and I know the difficulties of the present Government in carrying out such a policy. I know that in a great many cases there is certain to be local opposition. But, after all, the important thing with us is to see that people are planted on the land who are going to make it a success.

Deputy Curran has brought to my notice a question that has arisen in connection with afforestation, that is to say, using land for afforestation which is suitable for the planting of people on it. In my own area, at the moment, I understand that three farms are being taken over for the purpose of afforestation. In one of those farms a house has been built under the Gaeltacht Housing Act and a loan given to the tenant. In another case in which I made enquiries I found that one of the farms proposed to be taken over is a farm that used to carry 25 cows and heifers. I might say that my great-grandmother—God rest her soul—was brought up on that farm. I appeal to the Minister to look seriously into these matters. We are all aware that there is not sufficient land in this country to meet the demand and I think before embarking upon a programme of taking such land as this for afforestation that we should weigh the position very seriously. I know there are plenty of people in the vicinity who would be very glad to get holdings. I do not know whether it is the policy of the Government to carry out afforestation. Probably the Minister will be able to inform us on that subject.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

On this Vote the Minister has nothing to do with forestry.

Mr. O'Leary

I know that land has been taken for the purpose from the Land Commission. I am afraid if that policy is persisted in the position in the future will present very serious difficulties. I am prepared to co-operate in every way, and I have always been anxious to do the right thing. I think before embarking on a policy of that kind every effort should be made to find suitable tenants and plant them in these places.

Mr. Dillon

On a matter of information, is not Senator Connolly Minister for Forestry also?

Mr. Connolly

I am, but forestry does not arise on this Vote. The Leas-Cheann Comhairle was making it clear to the Deputy that it did not arise on this Vote.

Mr. O'Leary

I think it does arise on this Vote, because I have heard it said that land in the possession of the Land Commission is being bought over by the Forestry Department.

Mr. B. Maguire

I was rather sorry to hear Deputy Davin criticising the scheme under which people are taken from congested areas and put on land where it is available in the more favoured districts. I think that criticism is really unfair. First of all, if we take the whole system of land division in this country, it is, in conjunction with other systems that come within the range of the different Government Departments, a national affair, and the costs involved are national. We must realise that those who are living in the congested districts are placed at a great disadvantage. I submit that where, in a congested area, people are forced to live in a condition that is not ordinarily good enough for the purpose of rearing families, where the land is not of good quality and where there is not sufficient of it to go round so as to warrant a fairly decent standard of comfort for those who are bringing up families, there should be national consideration given to the condition of those people and the narrow idea of county limits should not apply.

The nation is being asked to make provision in a large and generous way for the inhabitants of the congested areas in our towns and cities, for those people who are obliged to live in slums. Very considerable sums have been spent in that connection and towards that work the poor farmers in the congested districts of this country have contributed their share. They have made no protest. None of their representatives in the Dáil has, on any occasion within my recollection, made a protest against the expenditure of large sums of money for the relief of the slum dwellers. I hope that the idea to which I refer does not prevail generally here—that fairly considerable provision should not be made where land is available for relief of rural slum areas where families are forced to live under conditions which must inevitably necessitate hardship in the bringing up of young children. We must realise that the system of economy in the congested areas has altered. For instance, emigration has stopped. Most of the counties in which those congested districts are situated do not come within the range of the industrial development that is taking place. My own idea is that the Government should be asked to take this question of congestion into consideration in a more general and generous way than has been the practice up to this. I hope that will be the policy of the Government.

I have listened to the criticism offered with respect to the delay of the Land Commission in carrying out the transfer of land to the people who require it. I must pay this compliment to the Minister, that within the last 12 months in my county, where there is not a whole lot of land suitable for division, very considerable improvement has taken place as compared with the work on land division undertaken by the late Administration. I daresay that the work carried out in Leitrim might to some extent account for the figures that have been quoted in the House indicating the amount of land divided in the last few years as against the land division carried on in previous years. Officials of the Land Commission had their men operating in a county where the largest farm would scarcely exceed 100 acres. It would necessitate an enormous amount of work to deal with the type of area such as is to be found in Leitrim. On the other hand, the actual net result is to my mind unquestionably much more beneficial than if the work were carried out on a larger acreage where fewer people would have their conditions improved. Let me, by way of illustration, take the case of a 100 acre farm in Leitrim. The owner is transplanted in another part of the country where land is available. The division of the 100 acres will perhaps mean the taking of 20 families out of uneconomic holdings and placing them in much better conditions, what would be regarded as good economic conditions.

There is ample evidence to be had indicating the necessity for what I strongly advocate—the transfer to a greater extent of people living in congested areas with the object of improving the conditions for those who are allowed to remain. In the districts for which I speak the Minister's policy has unquestionably brought about very considerable improvements within the last year; he has succeeded in speeding up the division of land and effected a general improvement of estates. In the division of bogland where fairly large tracts of turbary are available, it might be more beneficial if the right of cutaway was retained by the Land Commission rather than permit it to be divided amongst adjoining farmers who, in many cases, will not reclaim that land. In these areas the necessity for land is great and it will increase as the years go by. Therefore, these tracts of cutaway bog should be retained by the Land Commission with a view to their reclamation later on so that further land may be made available. I wish to compliment the Minister on the special attention he has given to what I consider are the most necessitous areas in the country.

Mr. G. O'Sullivan

I do not propose to follow the speakers on the other side of the House in their communistic theories as to the division of land, the right of a person who was born on the land and the right of respective babies as to the holdings of their fathers, their grandfathers and great-great-grandfathers back to 750 years ago. There is one matter I will urge on the Minister and I ask him to consider it very seriously. It arises, perhaps not directly, out of this Vote and it relates to proceedings under the 1933 Act. As the Minister is well aware, there is a case sub judice as to the validity of that Act and any act carried out under it and I think that the Minister should cease, pending the——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy is actually prejudicing the case by suggesting a certain course here. The advocacy of a certain course here could certainly not be allowed in view of the fact that a case is now before the court.

Mr. O'Sullivan

That is not the case I am making. Perhaps I did not put it in a sufficiently clear way. What I do say is that this particular case will be decided one way or another and, pending the determination of that case by the courts of this country, the Minister should stay proceedings under that Act.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That is exactly what the Minister would be doing and what the Deputy is suggesting. There is a case in the courts. If a certain line of action is decided on here, or if the Deputy is allowed to advocate it, I cannot see how it would not prejudice the case in the courts.

Mr. O'Sullivan

I am not dealing with the case.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I cannot allow the Deputy to proceed on that line.

Mr. O'Sullivan

In view of the knowledge that everybody has, may I not say that it would be in the best interest of everybody in this country, no matter what ideas we have with regard to the merits of the case or otherwise, that further proceedings under the Act should be stayed pending the decision? I am asking that in the general welfare and in the interest of good order and otherwise. I would be the last to suggest anything in this House that would be derogatory to the privileges of the court or to the privileges of the House.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Is there any sum included in this Estimate for the collection of annuities?

Mr. Dillon

Yes.

Mr. O'Sullivan

This Estimate deals with the general administration of the Land Commission.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

It does not.

Mr. O'Sullivan

I know there is a special Vote.

Mr. Connolly

There is nothing in this Estimate for the collection of annuities.

Mr. O'Sullivan

I am sure that the Minister will not object to my making this statement.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I am not concerned in the least with what the Minister objects to. There is nothing in this Estimate, as far as I know, to provide money for the collection of annuities.

Mr. Dillon

Under sub-head G, I have not the slightest doubt that there is a very considerable expenditure for making seizures under the Act of 1933. Then there is sub-head C—Incidental Expenses: Advertisements. It is highly probable that these are advertisements of the Minister's intention to seize.

Mr. Connolly

No.

Mr. Dillon

In any case, sub-head G —Telegrams and Telephones—will certainly involve some head of expenditure connected with the Minister's seizures under this Act.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

There are telegrams and telephone messages sent from the Department which have nothing to do with the collection of annuities. I cannot allow Deputy O'Sullivan to proceed any further on that line.

Mr. Dillon

Surely under Appropriations-in-Aid: "Costs recovered from Purchase Annuity Defaulters;""Excess Annuities;""Repayments in respect of fees paid in connection with proceedings under Section 28 of the Land Acts, 1933——"

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I have allowed Deputy O'Sullivan to proceed as far as is desirable on that line.

Mr. Dillon

The Chair will at least agree that the Act of 1933 is specifically referred to in the Estimate?

Mr. O'Sullivan

Do you, Sir, refuse to allow me to continue?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

On the line along which the Deputy is proceeding.

Mr. O'Sullivan

I regret I cannot follow the ruling of the Chair. I do not propose to introduce any element that would be disturbing to the national situation in this country, which is sufficiently disturbed already, but I felt that I could raise that particular subject on this Vote.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy began by referring to a case in the courts and then proceeded to introduce other matters impinging on that and having a certain connection with it, and I cannot allow him to proceed on that line.

Mr. O'Sullivan

I must, of course, obey the ruling of the Chair, but I want to make a request to the Minister that, in view of a certain matter, with which I am not dealing——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I cannot allow the Deputy to proceed any further on that line, and that is final.

Mr. O'Sullivan

Then I can deal with it under this. You have decided that it does arise under "Telegrams and Telephones."

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I have decided that any matter which has reference to that case in the courts cannot be raised here.

Mr. O'Sullivan

The case does not arise—I have ceased to refer to it. I can now refer to a matter specifically under sub-head I—Improvement of Estates, etc., and I can raise matters under sub-heads S J and Y. I can raise this particular question under any one of those three heads. You, Sir, have decided that it cannot be mentioned but, in view of the national importance of the matter, I think it is one to which I, as a representative in this House, should call the attention of the Minister. I do not want to make a Party matter of it, but I would ask you to allow me to request the Minister to consider the desirability of ceasing to function under that, as the matter is sub judice.

Mr. Coburn

On that question of the improvement of estates already acquired, I should like to ask the Minister whether any of this money finds its way to the County Louth. Possibly we are too well off there or we are rather quiet and sensible. I have made representations on many occasions as to improvements on certain estates which I understand the Land Commission have accepted liability to maintain, but nothing has been done. I should like to draw the Minister's attention to that. Several applications have been made to him for the repair of roads on estates but nothing has happened since. They are some estates in County Louth which, I understand, have been acquired or are about to be acquired by the Land Commission. Others have been inspected with a view to acquisition and to being divided amongst uneconomic holders there. While I agree that it would be very useful to speed up the acquisition of these estates, I am quite aware of the fact that the matter of acquisition is very slow work. The appointment of more inspectors, which has been suggested by many Deputies, would not hasten the acquisition of land by a day. Deputies seem to forget that it means additional expense. If the Land Commission appointed extra inspectors it would naturally mean that additional officials would have to be appointed in the different offices in the Land Commission dealing with the acquisition of land. Inspectors have to make reports to higher officials, so that there would have to be an increase of the higher officials as well. I do not think it would be wise policy on the part of the Land Commission to increase the staff at all.

Most of the speeches that have been delivered throughout the country on the question of land acquisition contain, in my opinion, a good deal of nonsense. I think the Minister should pay very little attention to speeches such as those delivered by Deputy Davin, even though Deputy Davin has got to do his stuff as against Deputy Donnelly in regard to the division of land in Leix. I do not think that the taxpayers of this country should be asked to provide money to suit what Deputy Donnelly or Deputy Davin says. They should do their own business in a business-like way. I hope the Minister will pay very little attention to what has been said by Deputy Davin. There was very little in his whole speech by way of grievance in regard to the manner in which the Land Commission has carried out its duties. Of course, every man speaks from his own experience of the treatment of people who apply for land, but I can truthfully say that I have found no differentiation at all in regard to the political affiliations of people, whether they support the Opposition or the Government. I think the Land Commission does its duty in a very conscientious way and I should like to pay that tribute to the officials and inspectors of the Land Commission. I think most of the criticisms that arose in regard to the alleged partiality shown were due to the speeches made by Deputies throughout the country. I think it is very unwise for Deputies to attend meetings of certain organisations and to promise members of those organisations that they are entitled to first consideration in the division of land.

Mr. Davin

Does the Deputy suggest I did that?

Mr. Coburn

It is most unwise for Deputies to make such speeches, and I think that any criticism to which the Land Commission has been subjected arose from that fact. At least I have made it a point not to promise people at meetings that I would get land for them. That is the business of the Land Commission The officials of the Land Commission are the best judges, and, as far as I know, the manner in which they carry out their duties in the distribution of whatever land they take over, commands, in most cases, the general approval of the people of the locality. Inspectors generally make a thorough examination of the position of the various applicants. They get all the information possible about the applicants, whether they have been connected with farming in the past and what is their capacity to farm the land. They make their selections accordingly and I certainly have very little to say by way of criticism of the manner in which they discharge their duties.

This is only a Supplementary Estimate, and there is no use in wasting the time of the House in a prolonged discussion. We shall have plenty of other occasions to bring up any grievances which we may have, and so far as my experience goes I have only to say that the Land Commission is doing very well, and I would impress on the Minister again that he should not incur any extra expenditure in the appointment of additional inspectors. There is no necessity for them at the present time. On the question of the value of land to be acquired, I would impress upon the Minister that fair play should be shown to people whose lands are about to be acquired. There is no use trying to blink our eyes to the fact that there does exist in this country the opinion amongst a certain section of our people that all they have got to do is to pass resolutions and send them up to the Government, and the Government or the Minister responsible will just simply go out and confiscate the land belonging to certain people. That idea does prevail, and I want to dissociate myself from it. I want to impress on the Minister that, after all, the old saying, "Honesty is the best policy," still holds good, and if the Minister on any future occasion has to acquire land, he should give a fair price for this land—not an exorbitant price, but a price which, in his opinion, is such as the future tenants of the land will be able to pay on an annuity basis.

In answer to those people who consider that the Land Commission is slow in acquiring land, I would say that I know of one or two cases in which the late Government, in order to satisfy certain people, purchased land at a price much higher than the price at which they could have purchased it had they waited some time longer. So you can see that very often it is better to proceed slowly in the purchase of land. Possibly a waiting policy is the best policy. The Land Commission cannot do everything at once. There are estates in the country, undoubtedly, which it would be better to acquire in the interests of uneconomic holders in the area, but all that will come in good time. The work will be carried out in future just as expeditiously as it has been in the past, without the necessity of incurring any additional expenditure by appointing extra inspectors.

Minister for Lands (Mr. Connolly)

There has been a great deal of discussion and a good deal of suggestion in the various remarks that have been made by the different Deputies. Some of them are rather elusive, some of them are bordering on the stupid, and some of them are entirely unjustified by the facts. I should like first of all to deal with the comments made by both Deputies Lynch and Dillon last evening, and to correct certain impressions they sought to convey with regard to the distribution of land and the activities of the Land Commission. A question was put on the 13th February asking the number of new holdings which the Land Commission had allotted. Of course, that Parliamentary question had to be answered in the terms in which it was asked, but it seemed to convey to both Deputy Lynch and Deputy Dillon that the Land Commission had completely slowed up its activity. I could not refrain from feeling a certain amount of cynical amusement at Deputy Lynch's comments on the period when he was Minister for Lands. Whatever might be said about his Parliamentary Secretary, who worked quite hard in the Department, I think the less said about Deputy Lynch's activity in regard to land the better.

Another matter I should like to clear up before I get to the main analysis of what the Land Commission is doing and has been doing, is the reference Deputy Lynch made to the Parliamentary question which was asked and answered here yesterday. Deputy Lynch informed the House that Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney had told him as he went through, that the Land Commission was giving land to landless men as the preliminary step in land division at the moment. Of course, I would be long sorry to take responsibility for what Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney told Deputy Lynch, and if he reads the question and the reply in the official report, he will find that the following statement is part of it:—

"Parties such as herds and labourers who have lost their employment as the result of taking of lands by the Land Commission are considered to have first claim. Genuine evicted tenants and uneconomic holders in the locality must be provided for and then come the landless men."

It is quite obvious that the Land Commission are not going to allot the first land in the division of estates to landless men. It has always been the practice since I went there, that those who lost employment by the taking over of the estates were dealt with first, then the genuine evicted tenants, and the uneconomic holders. They come in the order mentioned. When speaking of this we might as well be quite clear as to what we mean by genuine evicted tenants. I have some rather interesting applications from the descendants of evicted tenants from different States and from different towns; some of them obviously long removed from the land. When we think of evicted tenants, we think of evicted tenants living in the neighbourhood, who have a definite and a genuine grievance, and who are likely to make good on the land, if it is restored to them. Deputy Lynch stated that we could only spend money on unvested land. As a matter of fact we have power, with the concurrence of the Minister for Finance, to spend money on vested land, and we often do so.

What is the position with regard to the division of land? Deputy Dillon spoke of torchlight processions and brass bands in Donegal on my visit there during the 1933 election. I should like to assure him that I was not responsible for that. I think he said that I brought the torchlight processions and brass bands there. I should like to assure him again that I am not at all keen on torchlight processions and brass bands. I happen to have grown up in a generation which rather revolted against the idea of brass bands and torchlight processions, and that equally revolted against the rhetorical type of speech that we get in the pompous manner of the Deputy. I went, as most of those who were interested in the movement went, but I happened to be sent to Donegal, and I operated there. But I am neither vain enough nor foolish enough to think that the torchlight processions and brass bands were any compliment to Senator Connolly. I realise, as I always realised, that the unit counts for very little, and that if people are enthusiastic for a Party that has tried to serve them, they were determined to put that Party back into power. I will not refer to the actual position either of Deputy Dillon or of the other Deputies who were elected during that election. The figures speak for themselves.

I have got the figures relating to the actual position regarding land division for the first ten and a half months of the financial year—which means that we have still one month and a half, or approximately six weeks of the financial year, for returns yet to come in. I find that already a record figure has been set up for the ten and a half months over any previous year in Land Commission administration, either under the British or the Free State. Up to the middle of February we have allotted over 70,000 acres of untenanted land and, in addition, we have upwards of 20,000 acres divided on Congested Districts estates. I am quite satisfied that when the year is completed Deputies will be perfectly satisfied that the Land Commission has far exceeded their most optimistic expectations, and has reached a figure which I ask them to believe has only been done by consistent work, day and night. As most Deputies know, and as Deputy Lynch should have known, seeing that he claims to speak as the former Minister for Lands, there are peak periods in distribution. There are the periods coming up to October-November, and February-March, which are peak periods for schemes to be put into operation. We are at the peak period now. During the last two months 35,000 acres were divided, involving 1,500 allottees.

Whatever else may be said, I should like, at least, as Minister, to pay my tribute to the work that my inspectors and my staff have done, because they have rendered services during the last year that were never equalled. What was the position? What is called the 1933 Land Act was passed that year but certain formalities had to be complied with, and certain regulations and rules had to be passed, so that it was actually the beginning of March before the Act of 1933 was in operation.

I am satisfied that the Land Commission will go on increasing. Deputy Coburn mentioned that we should not increase the staff. There is a limit to what we can do, even by an increase of staff. It has to be remembered that if we have an untrained staff it may be rather a handicap. We have got generally to assimilate the staff, and to train the staff to work into the organisation. That applies both to the outdoor and the indoor staffs. The statement with regard to the amount of land we have actually divided should satisfy even the most unreasonable Deputy. I do not like to refer to the remarks of Deputy Dillon, but I suggest that he should be a little more careful when talking about hypocrisy and insincerity. There is a smugness about that that makes no appeal to the people, and I am perfectly satisfied, if I were interested in political reputations, the more abuse of that kind Deputy Dillon proceeds to pour out the better. I have the keenest appreciation of Deputy Dillon's status, and I may say the more of such insults are hurled by the Deputy the more they will react.

Mr. Dillon

I am glad the Minister preserves his peace of mind.

Mr. Connolly

Deputy Dillon raised a question about correspondence. I will be quite frank about correspondence. The Land Commission is not as perfect in the handling of correspondence as I would like it to be. It is an extremely difficult business to attend to correspondence in the Land Commission. It cannot and will not be handled as it is handled in a commercial concern. Deputies need not expect it, because it cannot be done. The officials cannot have it done. Consider the position. We handle at present upwards of 300,000 letters a year, in addition to dealing with close on 500,000 annuitants, with whom we have to have dealings twice a year. The officials are blamed for merely sending formal acknowledgments of letters in many cases—in fact in most cases—when they have no alternative. They are asked questions which they are not in a position to answer. They are asked when a certain estate is being taken over. The officials cannot say that. Even I, as Minister, cannot say it. That is a matter for the Commissioners. The officials are also asked if the Department can arrange that So-and-so is included on a scheme. It is a definite rule in the Land Commission that a scheme is not disclosed until the day the inspector goes out to announce it and to divide the land. The type of letter that the Land Commission gets is invariably such that it is practically impossible for the officials to give an answer. I find myself very often in the same difficulty. However, if the Deputy had any difficulty about correspondence, he knows that he had only to write to me, and I would have seen that whatever matters he is interested in would, at least, have had prompt official attention.

There was another question raised with regard to that, and that was the question of intervention in the case of people who claimed that they were unable to pay their annuities. Deputy Dillon, I think, had one particular case in mind. At any rate it was suggested by some Deputy that matters such as that could be attended to. The Minister for Defence had stated that sympathetic consideration would be given where there was a case of real hardship. I get letters like that. We have, as I have said, 500,000 annuitants whose payments are due twice a year. If I intervened in the case of the Collection Department, I feel that I would upset its whole arrangements, and I do not intervene. If I get a letter in connection with an annuitant who is in trouble, who cannot afford to pay or cannot find the money to pay at the time, I send it to the Collection Department, but I do not intervene with regard to it. I do not see how I could. If it were known that the Minister could be swayed I would probably get 50,000 letters.

It has also to be remembered that the difficulty of being even sympathetic with people who may find it hard to meet the payment of their annuities was entirely vitiated and complicated by the policy of the non-payment of annuities which was carried on. If things were normal and we felt that people were doing their utmost in every end of the country to pay their annuities, then a much more reasonable attitude might be taken by the Collection Department, but how is that Department to know who really can pay and who cannot, when we are aware that a vicious campaign, a most immoral campaign, was launched in this country against payment, and that by people who, in most cases, could pay.

A question was also raised with regard to the value of land. Deputy O'Leary or Deputy Curran spoke of the price that the Land Commission paid, and urged on me that a fair price should be paid. I have nothing to do with the fixing of the price of land, and I point out that the striking of an average price for land conveys nothing. We may get an estate of 1,000. Nine hundred acres of that may be mountain, 50 acres arable, and 50 acres bog. We get all sorts, conditions and type of land, and such a thing as striking an average cannot be done. You can take the acreage that we buy in a year, the amount that we issue in bonds, and you can work it out to a decimal point. That will give you an average per acre, but it conveys nothing. There are three steps in regard to fixing the price of land. There is first the case where the price is an agreed one: where an offer is made and a price is agreed upon between the Land Commission and the seller. Then there is the case where land is compulsorily acquired. The commissioners hold a sitting. They have an inspection of the land made for valuation, suitability and price. They accordingly publish the fact that they are acquiring these lands and publish the price, but that does not end the matter. The owner of the land has the right of appeal on the question of price. No matter how he is circumstanced as regards other provisions of the Act, the owner has the right of appeal on the question of price. Therefore, I do not see how I could go into the question of price. It is the Commissioners' job. The seller of the land is fully protected as to the value of the land and the price that is being paid to him. I have sample cases before me where the average price worked down to £8 10s. per acre. In another case, where we bought nearly 5,000 acres, the price worked down to £4 7s. 7d. per acre.

Mr. Dillon

Does the Land Commission make any differentiation when striking an average price as between arable land and bog land ?

Mr. Connolly

The particular estates that I have before me are mixed, where you have mountain land, some bog and some arable.

Mr. Dillon

I take it that about £7 represents the average for all quality?

Mr. Connolly

Deputy Roddy raised a number of interesting questions. I do not know whether I shall have time to deal with them all or not. The Deputy mentioned about Fianna Fáil dictating Land Commission policy. Well, he was long enough in the Land Commission to know that no matter how land is divided, no matter how careful officials are, there will always be the suggestion by disappointed people that So-and-so was deprived of land because he was a Blueshirt, and that So-and-so did not get land because he was not in Fianna Fáil. I am afraid that very often I am accused in the Land Commission of giving land to nobody but Blueshirts. However, you cannot have it every way. The Deputy also referred to the item of £300 for migrants and to the various experiments that were made by the last Government in bringing migrants to the eastern counties. I realise fully the very great dangers and difficulties that accompany any policy of migration, but I do not see any reason why we should not go on with it. We have got to relieve the position in the western counties, and when there is a fair amount of land—good land and rich land—in the east it is only fair, as Deputy Ben Maguire said, that a reasonable attitude should be taken up by the people of these eastern counties in regard to making room for a certain percentage of migrants coming in. We have taken every precaution. Every thing that we can do to prevent mistakes is being done.

We are putting these new migrants in a colony at Athboy. We are doing a certain amount of tillage for them before they come. We are trying to ensure that they will get a good start off, and a reasonable chance of making good. We have arranged with the Department of Agriculture to supply a first-class agricultural instructor, and we propose to continue this policy of migration from the different counties —Donegal, Kerry, Galway and Mayo— and from the different congested areas in order to try and relieve to some extent the congestion in those areas. I feel that it is reasonable that a certain percentage of the large ranch lands that we will be breaking up should go to these people. It is suggested here that they will not make good: that they have not the capacity for learning agriculture. It is an extraordinary thing that when these people go out of this country to England, Scotland and America they are able to show that they are as intelligent—if not more intelligent—as the emigrants from other countries. I have no fear about their making good. I admit that it means a drastic change in their lives. The conditions of agriculture will be different in their new surroundings to what they were in their old, but we have got to make a start somewhere. We cannot go on leaving these people on the rocks of Connemara and Donegal ignoring them. That is not my policy and it is not going to be my policy.

This links up with a matter that Deputy Davin raised. I want to make it perfectly clear how we try to work out a basis on this migration policy. Naturally, we must try to have a friendly atmosphere in the area to which we bring these people. That means that we have got to try to solve the problem of congestion in that area. The ex-employees have the first claim on the divided land there, then the people who are on uneconomic holdings, and when we have relieved the immediate congestion in the area we start to use up the spare land to relieve congestion in the West. That policy is being pursued. In our colony in Meath, we satisfied all the people in that area who showed any likelihood of being able to make good on the land before we attempted to arrange for the bringing of even one family from the West. That is a necessary step even for the safety, security and peace of the migrants who would be coming there—to ensure that they would not be coming into an area where there would be any hostility or feeling of resentment because of their coming. Deputy Roddy raised the question of the loss on untenanted lands in hands. This figure has to be conjectural each year. We do not always know how lands will work out, but I think there is very little to complain about in an additional Estimate of, I think, £2,000 for that purpose.

Deputy Davin raised the question of the old I.R.A. men. The pre-Truce I.R.A. men have a definite claim on any Government in this country, and, as such, are considered in the different categories. Other things being equal, a pre-Truce I.R.A. man would have a claim over the man who was not a pre-Truce I.R.A. man, but the qualifications are always kept in mind—the likelihood of the man making good on the land and the individual type of character. If he has a certain amount of capital and is able to supply stock, that is also taken into consideration. I need not go into all the details. The Land Commission inspectors are naturally intelligent men who know what is needed and who know the peculiar qualities necessary to give a man a chance of making good on the land. It is not our desire to put even one allottee on a holding unless we are satisfied that we have picked, so far as this can be humanly gauged, a reasonably good type of character who is out to make good and who will, in all probability, make good. Deputy Davin raised the question of grants. Very few grants for stock are now being given. The Land Commission feel that it is a dangerous type of grant, but we do make grants of £30, £40 and £50 in many cases where a man has no capital or very limited capital. Those grants are dependent on the circumstances.

Mr. Davin

I did not suggest that grants be given. I suggested that suitable landless men might be provided with loans free of interest for a reasonable period.

Mr. Connolly

When we are dealing with deserving landless men, we do give grants of £30 or £40 in many cases.

Mr. Davin

Is there any hope that loans will be available free of interest?

Mr. Connolly

I should not like to say anything about that at the moment. Deputy Davin raised the question of the displacement of employees when acreage is taken over for forestry. He said that every effort should be made to give the displaced men work at the forestry if they were not provided with holdings. Every effort is made, when we are taking over land for forestry and when former employees on the estate are not being provided with land, to give them employment in connection with the forestry scheme. As regards playing pitches, that is one of the first things we consider in taking over an estate. Quite a number of playing pitches are being provided and I hope we shall be able to continue to do that.

Deputy Norton raised the question of County Kildare. I do not know when he got his reply to the question he quoted here this afternoon, but I can tell him that already over 70,000 acres of untenanted land have been divided.

Mr. Norton

Would the Minister say how much of that acreage is turbary?

Mr. Connolly

I could not say, offhand.

Mr. Norton

The Minister is aware that there is an amount of turbary in that acreage?

Mr. Connolly

The Deputy also knows that there is still an amount of turbary to be divided. Deputy Corry referred to 3,000 acres of land in one parish which have been reported to the Land Commission and which have not yet been acquired. I am surprised that the Deputy did not suggest that if the land had been in a Blueshirt neighbourhood it would have been taken over already. Deputy Belton raised some points with regard to giving land to men who had special qualifications for the development of land. I presume that he meant by that men who had had training in agricultural colleges and so on. We always look for the most capable men, particularly when we are looking for landless men, and, naturally, a man with special qualifications of that kind would be looked upon as the best man. There are some peculiar qualifications in such cases. In one case you have men with special qualifications for land and in other cases you have what one might call land followers. It has often struck me that the attitude taken towards the land by a number of people is rather peculiar. For instance, even in the Seanad you will hear certain Senators say that land is no good—that it is not a paying proposition—but the moment we touch the land that they say is no good we have at least five or ten Senators getting up to protest against it, and we cannot satisfy them.

Deputy Coburn referred to County Louth. Perhaps that is because we have a Minister in County Louth and we are doing very little in it. The Deputy must know, however, that County Louth is a county that we do not look upon as one that affords much scope for additional tillage. The main thing is that the Land Commission is working at top speed. The whole staff are working at top speed, and I think it will be found that with the extended powers under the 1933 Act there will be a considerable speeding up in the division of untenanted land and land on Congested Districts Board estates.

Mr. G. O'Sullivan

Will the Minister reply to the question I asked him?

Mr. Connolly

I am afraid that the matter is sub judice, and has been ruled out of order on that account.

Mr. O'Sullivan

It was not ruled out of order.

Mr. Connolly

It was.

Mr. O'Sullivan

The Leas-Cheann Comhairle said that, as the 1924 Act did not arise out of this, my question was in order, and I asked would the Minister state whether or not proceedings under that Act would be discontinued pending a decision of the case.

Vote put and agreed to.