Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 13 Feb 1936

Vol. 60 No. 5

In Committee on Finance—Supplementary Estimates. - Vote No. 54.—Lands.

Minister for Finance (Mr. MacEntee)

I move:—

Go ndeontar suim Bhreise ná raghaidh thar £75,926 chun íoctha an Mhuirir a thiocfaidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh lá de Mhárta, 1936, chun Tuarastail agus Costaisí Oifigí an Aire Tailte agus Choimisiún Talmhan na hEireann (44 agus 45 Vict., c. 49, a. 46, agus c. 71, a. 4; 48 agus 49 Vict., c. 73, a. 17, 18 agus 20; 53 agus 54 Vict., c. 49, a. 2; 54 agus 55, Vict., c. 48; 3 Edw. 7, c. 37; 7 Edw. 7, c. 38 agus c. 56; 9 Edw. 7, c. 42; Uimh. 27 agus Uimh. 42 de 1923; Uimh. 25 de 1925; Uimh. 11 de 1926; Uimh. 19 de 1927; Uimh. 31 de 1929; Uimh. 11 de 1931; Uimh. 33 agus Uimh. 38 de 1933 agus Uimh. 11 de 1934).

That a Supplementary sum not exceeding £75,926 be granted to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending 31st March, 1936, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Offices of the Minister for Lands and of the Irish Land Commission (44 and 45 Vict., c. 49, sec. 46, and c. 71, sec. 4; 48 and 49 Vict., c. 73, secs. 17, 18 and 20; 53 and 54 Vict., c. 49, sec. 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 No. 11 of 1934).

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Lands (Mr. O'Grady)

This Supplementary Estimate is necessary to meet anticipated excesses under the following sub-heads:—Subhead C, Incidental Expenses, £1,300; sub-head F, Solicitor's Branch, Incidental Expenses, £2,500; sub-head I, Improvement of Estates, £120,000; sub-head Y, Assistance to Migrants from the Gaeltacht, £450, together with expenditure under the following new sub-head, A A, Losses, etc., £50. These items amount in all to £124,300, against which there is a set-off of £48,374, on account of anticipated savings on other sub-heads, leaving the net amount now required £75,926.

The anticipated excess of £120,000 under sub-head I, Improvement of Estates, etc., which is by far the largest item, is rendered necessary mainly by the increasing rate of division of untenanted land during the past few years. New holdings are being created in large numbers, and are being equipped with dwellinghouses and out-offices, and existing houses and out-offices on old holdings are being improved. Fencing, roadmaking and drainage are also required to a greater extent than before, corresponding with the increasing areas of land divided. For the period of months to 31st December last the expenditure on improvements has amounted to £386,000 approximately, and, as it is expected that there will be very concentrated efforts by the Department on the work during the remainder of the year, it is estimated that the total improvement expenditure for the whole financial year will be £520,000, being £120,000 in excess of the amount provided in sub-head I for this service. In addition to the main purpose of effecting improvements to farms, which will raise their economic and social value by the construction of roads, fences, drains, dwellinghouses, etc., this expenditure is also the means of providing useful employment in agricultural districts.

Expenditure under sub-head I may be taken as a rather fair index of the progress being made by the Land Commission in the distribution of untenanted land, and in the arrangement and general improvement of uneconomic and congested holdings. For that reason a statement of expenditure during each of the past five years may not be without interest. The Land Commission spent on land improvements, in 1930-1, £183,054; 1931-2, £155,106; 1932-3, £175,016; 1933-4, £228,012; 1934-5, £318,723, and this year, 1935-6, we expect a total outlay of £520,000. Even that does not mean that expenditure is keeping pace fully with requirements, for every year the amounts sanctioned for new houses, fences, roads, etc., are greater than the expenditure. However, the completion of improvement works to a total of over £500,000 in the year represents very satisfactory progress indeed, and has been achieved only as the result of intensive and prolonged efforts on the part of the staff. It is intended to keep up the pressure, and by the adoption of improved methods of accounting and supervision it is hoped that even that total of £500,000 will be passed next year.

The anticipated excess of £1,300 under sub-head C, Incidental Expenses, is mainly due to the increased cost of advertisements inviting tenders for the construction and improvement of dwelling-houses, etc., in connection with the division of untenanted land. The anticipated excess of £2,500 under sub-head F, Solicitor's Branch, is rendered necessary on account of the increased number of appeals to the Appeal Tribunal arising out of proceedings by the Land Commission for the acquisition of land under the Land Acts, 1923-33, involving the payment of costs, surveyor's fees, counsel's fees, etc. The estimated excess under sub-head Y, Assistance to Migrants from Gaeltacht, is due to the fact that it was not found possible to bring the migrants to the first Gaeltacht colony at Athboy, at the end of 1934 or early in 1935, as had been intended. A sum of £300 was provided in this sub-head last year to meet the cost of the special assistance which it was proposed to give these migrants (i.e., ploughing one acre of winter wheat, turf supply (£6 per family) and provision for one week (£2 per family). In fact, however, the first batch of migrants did not arrive until April, 1935, the second batch came in May, 1935, and the remainder in December last. In consequence only £65 of the amount provided for these items last year was expended within the year. Moreover, it was necessary for the Land Commission themselves to undertake the winter and spring tillage on the holdings (instead of one acre of winter wheat as originally anticipated) in order to ensure that when the migrants came they would have sufficient crops at their disposal to enable them to live through the remainder of the year. Furthermore, a larger supply of turf was necessary for those who came in December, as they will not be able to cut and save their own turf until next summer. Finally, the first batch of migrants who came in April had to be supplied with potatoes to enable them to subsist until the crops which had been sown became available. The total cost of all these items works out at a little over £800, from which must be deducted the sum of £65 charged against last year's Vote, leaving a balance of £750, i.e., an excess of £450 over the sum originally provided.

Mr. Dillon

How are they getting on?

Mr. O'Grady

They seem to be getting on all right. A new sub-head AA is now opended in order to provide for certain small losses of live stock and for the refund of an overpaid purchase annuity. One of the losses of live stock occurred in the course of improvement works which were being carried out by the Land Commission, and the other on Land Commission lands which had been set for grazing. There was no appropriate sub-head in the Vote to which such minor matters could be charged.

The anticipated savings are under various sub-heads, the principal being: sub-head W, £20,700; sub-head S, £8,500; sub-head A, £4,800; sub-head J, £3,000. Sub-head W provides for the payment of lodgment fees to sheriffs and court registrars in respect of warrants issued under Section 28 of the Land Act, 1933, for the recovery of unpaid instalments of land purchase annuities, etc. In consequence of a recent High Court judgment (Halpin v. Attorney-General) these fees have ceased to be payable and there is therefore an estimated saving of £20,000 on the sub-head. Sub-head S, provides for the amount required to complete purchase proceedings pending under the Land Acts, 1903 and 1909. All the outstanding cases cannot be completed this year, with the result that there is an estimated saving of £8,500 on the sub-head.

Sub-head A provides for salaries, wages and allowances of the Land Commission staff. There is an estimated saving of £4,800 under this sub-head, due mainly to the occurrence of vacancies by death or retirement during the year which have not yet been filled.

Sub-head J provides for the deficiency of income from untenanted land purchased under the Land Acts and, as the amount of such deficiency incurred up to date is not so great as had been anticipated, there is an estimated saving of £3,000 on this sub-head. Various other smaller savings are expected to make up a total of £48,374, which can be set off against the increased amounts required under sub-heads C, F, I, Y and AA, leaving a net additional charge of £75,926.

Mr. Dillon

After that moving introduction of an Estimate I will be excused for finding my enthusiasm somewhat flagging. There are two net points I want to raise. One is that the Parliamentary Secretary, in view of the fact that he is asking for £450 for further assistance to the migrants in the Gaeltacht might have made this the occasion of telling us what we are very anxious to know-how these people are doing. It is a great experiment and it looks like one which will be very difficult to bring to a satisfactory fruition. It would have been a source of encouragement to everybody to know that so far everything was going well. As there are a good many people in the country who were doubtful and apprehensive when the matter was undertaken, I think we ought to get some fairly detailed information from the Parliamentary Secretary when he is replying as to what the situation now is.

The other is a very simple question that I have raised with the Department time and time again. The Land Commission are making roads and have been making roads all over the country for the last 40 years and having made the road they walk off and leave it there. The local authority will not maintain it and nobody else will maintain it. The Land Commission make the road originally to provide a public right-of-way up to some part of the land that they divide and, having done that, not infrequently people will build houses on the road, or even the local authority will build labourers' cottages on the road, and them the road proceeds to deteriorate.

The local county councillor, as I have often done, draws the attention of the county surveyor to this road and asks him to carry out whatever repairs are necessary. He immediately replies, "I cannot touch that road because it is not a road of public convenience" under a judgment given by Chief Baron Palles in a well-known case in the Court of Appeal. You go to the Land Commission and ask them to repair the road and they say that if the road is vested in the tenants they cannot do anything. I think that is their stock excuse. To do the Land Commission justice, I must say that if the land is not vested you can often knock a few pounds out of them for this purpose. Then you go to the Board of Works and suggest that they should start a relief work in repairing the road and the Board of Works will say: "Deputy Hugo Flinn is sick of listening to by-roads; will you propose some other form of relief work? In any case there is no money." The net result is that the road is not repaired. Here the disrepair of a by-road seems to be a matter of trivial importance. But where you have four or five families living on it all through the winter, bringing in turf and doing their business on the road, it is the greatest possible inconvenience to them. I want the Land Commission to do one of two things—either maintain these roads or else use their influence with the Department of Local Government to introduce legislation to make the local authorities liable under certain circumstances for these roads.

I make the suggestion that where local authorities place houses on a Land Commission road they automatically become liable for its maintenance: but that where there is no house built on a Land Commission road, the Land Commission will, say, at septennial intervals restore the road to proper condition and leave it to the residents on the road or the people who have land about the road to keep it in repair for the seven years between the septennial visitations of the Land Commission. There is one proposal to deal with by-roads. I have not heard any put up by the Government. Every Deputy who lives in the country knows what a constant annoyance this problem of Land Commission roads is. The Land Commission is responsible for them all. Either the Land Commission or the Department of Local Government ought to deal with what is a recurring irritation to the country people.

Now I come to the principal question that arises under the Supplementary Estimate. We are asked for £120,000 under sub-head I for the improvement of estates. I take it that covers expenditure on the improvement of land compulsorily acquired for distribution among congests or for new tenants. I want to ask the Land Commission now to state publicly what principle underlies their policy for the compulsory acquisition of land. I remember when the 1933 Land Bill was passing I said on the Second Stage that that Bill meant the end of security of tenure in this country, and so it is proving to be. All through the land war the fundamental principle underlying every Land Act was that what the people of this country were concerned to ensure was that if any man was living on the land, making a homestead of it, his holding was sacrosanct, and that that principle went for the landlord just as much as for the tenant: that we were not concerned to rob any man, landlord or tenant, of his holding, but that what we were concerned to do was to ensure that the person living on the land would own the land and would not pay rent for it to somebody else. So, you will find through all the Land Acts, up to a certain point, that there is never any power given to the Land Commission to break down the demesne wall. A lot of radicals in the country said: "Why would you not go in and break down the demesne wall and take the land off the landlord with his thousands of acres and give it to the man with a few acres; why should he have it?" And the answer was clear to any rational man: Because you had to stand on some principle or otherwise the whole system of land tenure in the country would go into a state of flux and there would be no end to the business. That was the principle that should have been stood upon: that any man living on the land should own the land he was living on. That principle went in the 1923 Land Act, but safeguards were left, that if you wanted to go in and take land that was bought out under previous Land Acts, you had to offer to the person who was being disturbed land that was equally suitable, and the Land Court held that that did not only mean land that was equally profitable but which, in every sense of the word, was equally suitable to the tenant disturbed.

Then you got the 1933 Land Act, and we were informed that the procedure envisaged in the former Act was not working and that more drastic powers had to be acquired. I knew what that meant. What it really meant was that men who had bought under the previous Land Acts came up to the Land Court and satisfied the Land Court that a substantial injustice was being done through disturbing them, and the court weighed the advantages that would accrue to the neighbours from disturbing this man against the disadvantages of leaving him there, and generally the court gave a fair verdict, removing some men and forbidding the Land Commission to remove others. That safeguard was swept away and, of course, everything in the garden was lovely so long as you were going around to fairly substantial men and plundering them. Let me give to this House a sample of the unscrupulous robbery that was attempted by the Land Commission.

An Ceann Comhairle

I do not wish to interrupt the Deputy, but on a Supplementary Estimate the discussion is confined to the actual items there. I am not clear—and I should like the guidance of the Deputy and the Parliamentary Secretary on the matter—as to what is contained in item (I), as I am not conversant with the contents of the item referred to. If the purchase of estates is not covered by this item, the Deputy might confine that to the discussion on the Estimate. I am not sure if it is included in item (I).

Mr. Dillon

Item (F) would cover it; Sir. Item (F) deals with the solicitors' branch—solicitors' costs and fees in regard to compulsory purchase under the Land Act of 1909 and proceedings under the Land Acts, 1923 to 1933.

An Ceann Comhairle

Of course that would be concerned with solicitors' expenses, and not with the policy of the Land Commission in regard to taking land. The Supplementary Estimate is confined to the actual Estimate there, and if the item is solely concerned with the solicitors' office, it would certainly be widening the debate beyond what is legitimate to go into the policy of the Land commission in the acquisition of land.

Mr. Dillon

I think, Sir that if I can show that the Parliamentary Secretary has entered into a conspiracy with the Land Commission to rob the public of this huge sum and that the public have taken their constitutional remedy by hailing the Land Commission before the courts, that can be said to be covered by item (F).

An Ceann Comhairle

Yes, if it is not going into the whole policy of the Land Commission in the acquisition of land.

Mr. Dillon

I am going to show that the Land Commission were severely censured by the Land Court, and I am going to give a case where their primary offer was multiplied by six. I am going to rebuke the Parliamentary Secretary in that he has entered into a conspiracy with the Land Commission to rob the people by this amount and that that has been shown by means of the machinery which gives them access to the courts. Let me give one case in point. Richard Carroll lives in Kilteely in the County of Limerick. He is a person that I and the Parliamentary Secretary have reason to believe has no use for our political Party at all. In fact, he thinks that we are largely responsible for any attack that was made upon him. This man bought 38½ acres of land in 1924 and he paid £3,000 for that land. He has three growing boys for whom provision will have to be made when they reach their majority. I want to remind the Parliamentary Secretary that that very question was raised in the 1933 Land Act. Suppose a farmer has a growing family and would appear to have more land than £2,000 worth, is he entitled to say to the Land Commission: "I may have more land at the moment than the spirit of this legislation thinks I ought to have, but I intend to provide some of it for those boys who are growing up and who will shortly be of age and must be provided for?" Richard Carroll has three such boys. He is not setting the land in conacre. He has, in addition to these 38½ acres comprised in the farm to which I refer, about 65 acres in the immediate neighbourhood. None of this land is let. All of it is being worked by Richard Carroll at the present time and he has seven men employed working on the land. Now, in the face of those facts which, I feel, constitute the conclusive case against any attempt to acquire at all, the Land Commission proceeded to acquire the lands. Deputies are as familiar as I am with their procedure when they proceed to compulsorily acquire land bought under a previous Land Act. They propose a sum with a stipulation that, out of the purchase money, the tenant must redeem all outstanding annuities, and it is only after the tenant has redeemed all outstanding annuities that he can put the balance of the money into his pocket as compensation for the land from which he is being disturbed. Richard Carroll paid £3,000 for 38½ acres, subject to their annuity.

Mr. Donnelly

When did he buy?

Mr. Dillon

He bought in 1924. Since then the land annuity has been halved and the Land Commission offer him a net sum of £138 for the land for which he paid £3,000 ten years ago.

Mr. Corry

What was the annuity?

Mr. Dillon

He was offered £138.

Mr. Corry

Yes, but what was his annuity?

Mr. Dillon

I do not know what the annuity was. However, I think I can astonish Deputy Corry when I tell him what ensued without any reference to the annuity at all. Mr. Carroll went to the Land Court and in that court the sum of money he was offered by the Land Commission for the land was increased from £138 to £718. Now, is it right that any Department of State——

Mr. Donnelly

Does the Deputy mean that what the Land Commission offered was increased from £138 to £718?

Mr. Dillon

Yes, but the Deputy must bear in mind that, supposing the Land Commission offered him £700, it is quite possible that so much of that would go to redeem the annuity. Here we have the Land Commission's offer multiplied by six by the court— the difference between £138 and £718. I regard that as outrageous. I here assert that land is being acquired from farmers all over this country at the present time by the Land Commission at prices which constitute highway robbery. Farmers are being turned out of holdings where they can make a modest livelihood and are being given as compensation a sum which invested would not keep them three weeks out of the 52. That is robbery.

Let me pass to another case which I raised in this House yesterday in respect to the holding of a man called Devereux in the County Wexford. That case, I have no doubt, will come before the Land Court, and the expenses will form portion of a Supplementary Estimate to be brought before this House hereafter. Devereux and a group of neighbours are farmers on holdings of land of 70 to 90 acres. Their families have been on these holdings for generations. They were tenants of people of the name of King, whose estate was bought out and they then became tenant purchasers. One of the tenants is this man called Devereux. He has 90 acres of land. He employs—I am now speaking from memory, but I can verify the facts if they are questioned—five persons on that farm. Every inch of it he uses himself. There is no question of his being a practical tenant farmer. Mark this: he is living on the land; he is working that land and he is giving employment to five people on that land. There is plenty of land immediately around his place, the owners of which want to sell but the Land Commission goes in and serves a notice on Devereux that they are making an inspection of his land with a view to its acquisition. That case has been raised in this House and it may be that the Land Commission will now turn tail and fly from the publicity attendant on such an outrage. But they have already done the damage. They have no right to go in on a man's land, threaten him with eviction, and then when the full light of publicity is thrown on the case turn tail and fly. That man has been caused a great deal of mental anguish, annoyance and anxiety.

I issue to-day the warning that I issued when the Land Bill was going through the House. If this Government thinks that it can walk in on the holdings of small tenant purchasers of the country, and shift them round the country as if they were lumps of wood, if they think they can take a man who is farming 70 or 80 acres of land in Wexford, take the land off him and tell him that if he wants land he will have to go to Meath or Louth, they are making a great mistake. They cannot do it. If they attempt to do it they will give rise to another agrarian agitation in this country and, God knows, we all know what that means. I do not believe there is a single Deputy on the Fianna Fáil Benches who was born in rural Ireland who wants that to happen. I do not expect men who were born in Dublin to know what it means. They never did, and never will, but I put it to Deputies who were born in rural Ireland that nothing that the Government, President de Valera, or anybody else can do will make the people submit to that. You cannot drive them from their holdings, and if you attempt to do it you will drive the country into a bloody land war, and I use that phrase in its literal sense. That would be a horrible disaster.

Hitherto, the Land Commission has been looked-up to by the people as their friend and champion as against the landlords. It is now becoming an infinitely worse landlord than Clanricarde ever was. You shake the confidence of the people in the personnel of the Land Commission if you make the Land Commission appear in the minds of the people as a menace and a threat to their fixity of tenure; you are going irretrievably to injure the Land Commission as a power for good in this country and that would be a great disaster. I have no hesitation in saying that if the policy of the Land Commission is truly represented by their activities in the case of Carroll's farm and Devereux's holding, they are a greater menace to the principle of fixity of tenure in this country than Clanricarde or Barrymore ever was, because they are helped by the Legislation of the Oireachtas whereas Clanricarde and Barrymore had no such authority behind them. They were supported in their activities by British troops and police, but the Land Commission are going out with the Civic Guards. Eventually they will have to go out with the Saorstát Army behind them if they want to carry out a policy of that kind.

I implore all Deputies on the other side to make the Land Commission realise what they are doing. Why cannot there be fixity of tenure in this country? Why create bloodshed and upheaval in this country? Why cannot we stop it now? Why cannot some understanding be come to between the Government and the Opposition, or within the ranks of the Government itself by which some principle will be laid down which will enable us to say that farmers conforming to a certain standard are guaranteed against disturbance for all time because unless that is done now no man knows when the Land Commission will take action against him? I have ventilated that as the greatest objection to the activities of the Land Commission. My second objection is that they are creating through the country a belief that, if you are covetous of your neighbour's land, all you have got to do is to start a Fianna Fáil Cumann and move a resolution asking the Land Commission to have the lands of so-and-so divided amongst the members. Fianna Fáil T.D.s have gone down to a Fianna Fáil cumann and discussed with that cumann the division of a tenant farmer's holding in that very parish.

Mr. Donnelly

Where?

Mr. Dillon

In Cavan. I know of one case where the actual division of a man's land was discussed before the Land Commission had acquired it and while the man was still living on it. Now I am not saying that these T.D.s should go and coerce the Land Commission to do this or that, but what I am saying is, that it does create fierce, bad blood in the country and that it should be made most categorically clear that it is open to no branch of a political organisation to dictate to the Land Commission what land they will acquire and what land they will not acquire. It should be made clear to branches of Fine Gael as well as to branches of Fianna Fáil that if the Land Commission is contemplating the acquisition of land and if there is a resolution passed in regard to that land at a branch of Fianna Fáil or a branch of Fine Gael, the only effect that it will have is to postpone the whole business because the Government is not prepared to allow its judgment to be swayed by either side in the division and acquisition of land.

There is a third, to my mind the most moving and shocking, development of late. Few Deputies in this House are old enough to remember the conditions that obtained here prior to 1885 but all the travelling diarists, and the personal recollections of those who remember these times, dwell particularly on the steady deterioration in the condition of the houses and the lands of the people so long as uncertainly in respect of fixity of tenure obtained. The reason for that is simple, because, if you were living in a parish and were solicitous to keep your house clean and your land good, you naturally excited the envy of any covetous person living in that locality. The potential grabber, the bailiff's son, who meant to obtain land by hook or crook when he got his chance, did not covet the run-down place or the rotten place. He set his eye on the good land, and so, immediately, every farmer in this country who was afraid of the grabber, who was afraid of the covetousness of the bailiff's son, let his land go down. He dare not improve it for two reasons: firstly, if he did improve it, the rent would be raised, and, secondly, it was quite likely that the bailiff's son, some grabber or somebody whom the landlord wanted to bring into the district, would be planted in the place at the expense of the good tenant.

Now, if I have 40 or 50 acres of land, and there are a number of people around me with 30 or 40 acres, any if my neighbour's land is getting rushy or dirty, or the ditches are not cleaned and the hedges allowed to grow wild, and if I exert myself on my land and try to keep it good, with the result that, with the passage of years, the land begins to stand out from amongst my neighbours' land, when the grabbing Fianna Fáil cumann sits down to discuss "What are we going to grab?" what do you expect them to grab? They are not going to divide up the rushy land; they are not going to divide up the dirty land. They are going to divide up the land that has made them jealous for the last ten years, and they are going to divide up the land they have been longing for for the previous ten years. Deputies here may say that, if they think they can do that, the Land Commission will step across their path and say "No," but the country people do not know that and they do not believe that. The country people believe that representations of the kind I describe carry great weight in the Land Commission, and I know that a number of people, with whom I have recently discussed the putting out of basic slag and artificial manure on land, have said to me: "Who would improve his land now? If you did improve it, God knows but it will be taken from you the morning after you improve it."

I implore of the Land Commission, before irretrievable damage is done, to reconsider this business of disturbing farmers who are working their land. We may consider on their merits cases of persons who have land let out at conacre. Prima facie, if a person does not work the land he owns, there seems to be a case for transferring it to people who will work it. It is not always the case, however, because I know of a certain widow in the country who has a boy of 14 or 15 years of age, who is still too young to take over land and run it properly, and who lets it out at conacre until her son comes of age. I think it a great hardship to take that woman's land, even though she has it set. Where there is a prima facie case, and where it appears that land is being let out, that case is worthy of examination and an equitable decision may be arrived at which may involve no reference to the Land Court at all. But where you have a person living on the land and working the land, I warn you that if you entrench upon the principle that that person should not be disturbed, you are going to be dragged down the slippery slope where you will have to interfere with the holding of every man in the country.

There are some block-headed idiots in this country who believe they can rob their neighbours and get away with it. They cannot, and I see some warriors here who imagine that, through a Fianna Fáil cumann, they can rob every person of whom they are covetous. They cannot. There is a spirit in this country that will make that impossible. God forbid that we would smash Fianna Fáil through an agrarian agitation, but if we have to do it, in order to prevent that kind of wrong-doing, I am prepared to take part in the evictions that must ensue if that policy is pursued.

Gearóid MacPartoláin

Maidir le ceist tailte na tíre seo, ba mhaith liom tagairt do dhéanamh d'aistriuchán muintir na Gaeltachta go dtí na tailte bána. Ba mhaith liom moladh do thabhairt do'n Rialtas mar gheall ar an méid atá déanta aca dosna daoine seo. Tá obair breagh á dhéanamh aca agus is mór an creideamhaint do'n Rialtas é, ach ba mhaith liom fheicéal rud eigin curtha í bhfheidhm a cuirfheadh an obair sin chun críoe chó luath agus is feidir. Tá's agam go bhfuil gá le morán airgid chun an scéim do chur í bhfheidhm, ach, do réir mo thuairim-se, níl aon caoi eile chun na Ghaeltachta do shábháil. 'Sé seo an plean is breagh do ceapadh fós.

Is furuste, im' thuairim, an Ghaoluinn do choiméad beo í lár na h-Eireann—í gConndae na Midhe, cur í gcás—ná mar atá sé í gConnamara agus in áiteanna eile. Tá súil agam go gcuirfheadh an Rialtas níos mó airgid í leathtaoibh i gcóir an scéim seo. Tá moladh tuilte ag an Rialtas thar ceann an obair atá déanta aca agus tá daoine na Ghaeltachta ana bhuidheach dén Rialtas mar gheall ar an obair atá curtha ar bun ar a son.

Mr. Bennett

One has sympathy with the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary who presides over the Land Commission, because, if there is any Department of State which subjects whoever is at its head to criticism, it is the Land Commission. I believe that if the Archangel himself were put at the head of it, he would be criticised from very many quarters. However, the person for the time being who is put into that position must accept criticism. Criticism is levelled at the Land Commission inside and outside this House in very many ways. There are people criticising the Parliamentary Secretary because land is not distributed quickly enough or because this particular parcel of land, or that particular parcel of land is not taken over. I do not want to go into a general discussion of the Land Commission, but I should like to refer to some of the items in this Estimate, to which the Parliamentary Secretary himself has referred. For the moment, I should like to refer to the question of fencing and roadmaking, dealt with by Deputy Dillon, and to reiterate what he said as to the desirability of the Land Commission building these roads and fences particularly more effectively. The fences put up for the division of some of the estates I know are a scandal. They are narrow, single fences and it will take a considerable time for the grass to grow on them. If any of the people put any horned stock in these, unless they go to the expense of paling off the fences, the fences will disappear. If small-holders are expected to farm efficiently, efficient fences ought to be put up. The same applies to roadmaking.

As I said, the Parliamentary Secretary is criticised for not distributing land quickly enough and there may be some foundation for that criticism. We all know that there are large tracts of land in the hands of the Land Commission for a considerable period, not yet distributed, for one reason or another. There does not appear to be sufficient activity in some counties in that direction. In almost every county there are large parcels which have been resumed, or otherwise taken over, and which have not yet been distributed. On the other hand, there appears to have been considerable activity amongst Land Commission inspectors and others in the matter of inspecting the lands of ordinary tenant purchasers, and that is the particular matter to which I want to refer. I, for one, will object to any portion of the expenditure on the Land Commission being devoted to that purpose. The various Land Acts from 1909 to 1933 were, in reality, what we all expected—a consummation of the land war that preceded them. Every tenant purchaser, when he had finally made his agreement and purchased his land, believed that he was the owner of that land and that the things which had been fought for—fixity of tenure and free sale—were left to him, and until this particular Act was passed he was practically secure in that respect. It would be a lamentable thing if action taken by any Government should create in the minds of the farming people the idea that their tenure in their land was insecure.

Many things will arise from that. The first, as Deputy Dillon pointed out, will be a disinclination to make improvements. That would be a iamentable thing for the State generally, particularly in view of the activities of this Government to increase production on the land. If this process is resorted to, there will certainly be no inclination on the part of people to improve their land. To my mind a bigger thing will be this: that owing to this particular action the farmer will be the one class in the community who will be unable to obtain credit. The reason is that if you make his tenure insecure his chance of borrowing on his land will be infinitesimal. Owing to present conditions it is a difficult thing for farmers to obtain credit, but it is becoming increasingly difficult for them to get credit mainly because of the fear that the title to their lands is insecure. That will have its reactions on the sale of land. It will be increasingly difficult for a farmer to sell his farm in the open market. A man for one reason or another—for instance, he may have no family—may wish to sell his farm, but owing to this particular action the sale of land will become almost impossible here.

I would remind Deputies that the free sale of land is looked upon as a good thing by financiers. It reacts on the credit of the country. I read with interest the other day the statement made by the chairman of one of our big banking institutions. He said that at the moment "the land market was dead and that it was likely to remain so as long as present conditions prevail." I admit that he was then speaking on another matter, but he went on to say that

"when farming became a marketable asset in the open market, considerable credit would accrue to the State generally."

That is true. You are going to kill the chance of that considerable benefit ever arising if you approve of the action taken recently by the Land Commission of acquiring the property of average sized farmers, of people who believed they were secure in their land and who had reason to believe that from the words used in this House by the Minister in charge of the 1933 Land Act. It was because we placed dependence on the words he used on the various stages of that measure that it was allowed to go through.

Mr. Donnelly

Is the Deputy able to quote any specific case of a sale being held up owing to the insecurity of tenure?

Mr. Bennett

I have two cases in mind that are proceeding, but I refrain from mentioning them in the House lest, by doing so, I should make the position of the particular individuals concerned more insecure than it is. I am pointing out to the House the consequences that will follow to the State generally as a result of the action that is being taken by the Land Commission. One result will be that it will destroy any incentive in individual farmers to improve their farms or to buy land. You will make it impossible for people to buy land. You will make free sale impossible, and if you do that you will be destroying a thing that financiers believe is of great advantage to the general community.

I am altogether opposed to the compulsory acquisition of land that was supposed to be inviolable. Tenant purchasers believed that they were secure in their farms. They were told so by the Minister for Defence who was in charge of the 1933 Land Act when it was going through the Oireachtas. It is not reasonable that the undertaking then given should now be broken by the Minister and officials responsible for Land Commission administration. If necessary, amending legislation should be introduced to make such a thing impossible. The Parliamentary Secretary, in reply to a question that was addressed to him yesterday in connection with land in Wexford, rather implied that action might not be taken eventually. He said that Land Commissioners go around the country and inspect farms in the ordinary course of their work. That is a thing that I want to see stopped, because once they go into a district and set foot on a farm the people on the surrounding farms believe that it is about to be made subject to resumption by the Land Commission. Action of that kind creates consternation amongst farmers. They believe that sooner or later, possibly sooner, the occupier is going to be dispossessed. The result is that there is no incentive in him to do anything to improve his holding in the interim.

I am totally opposed to the resumption of average-sized purchased farms, in fact to the resumption of any sized purchased farm provided, as the Minister in charge of the 1933 Land Act said, it is well managed. It may be necessary, on occasions, to take over in some districts purchased holdings, but I hold that there are always opportunities for taking over farms without compulsorily acquiring them. In almost every county in the south farms are being continually offered for sale in the open market. In that connection we were told by the Minister in charge of the 1933 Land Act that, if such farms were resumed, the price to be paid for them would be the price that a man would get in the open market. Take this Limerick case that Deputy Dillon referred to. To my own knowledge, there were within two or three miles of that particular farm three or four farms sold in the open market in the last six months. Why did not the Land Commission go into the open market and buy one of them? The reason, I suppose, is that they thought the price to be paid would be too much to let it to the incoming tenants. I well remember that when the 1933 Land Act was going through the Minister in charge of it was asked this question by Deputy Haslett: whether the price that the Land Commission would pay for such a farm would be a price which they could reasonably pay so as to give an economic holding to the future tenants, or whether it would be the price obtainable in the open market. The Minister answered that it would be the market price, thereby making it perfectly clear that it was his intention that the price to be given was not the price that would make it economic to let the land afterwards, but the price obtainable in the open market. I and other Deputies realise that you cannot put people on land without cost to the State.

Mr. Donnelly

It is money well spent.

Mr. Bennett

I agree with Deputy Donnelly that it is. No matter how much this House chooses to pay to put people on the land I will back it. We must realise that we have got to pay for putting people on the land, but, on the other hand, the people who get the land must remember that they are not going to get land at their neighbour's expense. These people must remember that every sod of land that they get, every house that is put on the land for them, is all provided at the expense of the State. If they remember that they will probably realise more fully the benefit that the State is giving them. I put it to Deputies that they should look at this as reasonable men. We should not undo all that our forefathers fought for and won. Think of all the misery that was endured in the 70's and the 80's and the 90's to win security of tenure for the Irish farmer. Surely an Irish Government is not going to undo the great work that was accomplished in that respect when the people of this country were under an alien Government, and the great results that were achieved by the Irish Parliamentary leaders of a past generation; the great fight that they made in an outside country to make the position of the Irish farmer secure in his homestead. Let us, in God's name, not undo that great work. The tenant farmer suffered in blood and misery for the security of his home and his land and I hope no Deputy would stand over this proceeding. I shall not be a party to the voting of public money to be devoted to any such purpose.

Mr. Corry

We had two or three very moving cases put forward by Deputy Dillon. I do not know the particulars of these cases, but I think the sums offered are rather extraordinary. Still, land was taken over by the Land Commission in previous years under very peculiar circumstances. I shall refer to some cases of land purchased from the landlord for the tenant under the 1923 Act, which cases may be compared with Mr. Carroll's case and may explain the rather extraordinary price offered. Some extraordinary things happened during that period, and I think that it would be better to deal with them. There is one case at Johnstown, Country Cork, of a farm of 75 statute acres, of which the poor law valuation is £120 and the revised annuity, that is, the halved annuity—£61 15s. I do not know who the lunatic was who valued the land, but at any rate the landlord got away with a certain amount of loot.

Mr. MacMenamin

How much did he get?

Mr. Corry

You can make that up when the revised annuity on 75 statute acres is £61 15s.

Mr. Bennett

Are you going to take it off the tenant because it is too dear?

Mr. Corry

The tenant would have to pay the Land Commission to take over that farm. We hear a lot of noise about these 38½ acres. I shall refer to another farm of 25 acres which was taken over. The tenant was removed 60 miles away. He got another holding there and his 25 acres were acquired for the urgent relief of congestion. That man was 7½ years in the farm to which he was removed and paid one half year's annuity in that period. Then he was taken back and placed on the 25 acres which had been acquired for the relief of congestion. The house which he had left in a good condition was in a tumble-down state when he came back and the Land Commission built him a new house. They put him back on the same farm, which was lying there for 7½ years. Deputy Bennett stood over that and Deputy Roddy was the man who was responsible at the time. If Deputy Dillon chooses to thump the table and go into hysterics over these 38½ acres, he must remember the sins of the Party he has joined.

Mr. Keating

What was your record in the Land League days?

Mr. Corry

I admit that in particular cases you will meet——

Mr. Keating

You should be ashamed of yourself.

Mr. Corry

I admit that, in particular cases, you will meet a share of hardship. But you must remember that you have small farmers with from 20 to 35 acres who have from three to five sons from 35 to 40 years of age with no outlet but the land. Land has to be provided in these cases. In one small parish in my constituency, there is a farm of 1,300 acres of the finest land in Cork, valued at over £1 an acre. There are two men employed on the 1,300 acres to mind bullocks. Bullocks are bad cattle now and the job is not paying, with the result that the unfortunate small holders in County Cork have to foot a bill for that gentleman of about £380 in unpaid rates. The small farmer with 35 acres and four or five sons, in addition to paying his own rates, has to pay his share of the £385 due on this 1,300 acre holding. In addition, I suppose he has to meet another lump in respect of unpaid annuities on these 1,300 acres. Then we are infringing the rights of the land-owners. Was there ever a land war fought to keep a gentleman of that description on 1,300 acres? There is another holding a mile and a half from that holding which contains 570 acres. One man is employed on that holding and it was up three weeks ago for letting on the 11 months system. There are, in all, about 7,000 acres in that parish in that condition, the smallest holding being 380 acres. That land is there while the unfortunate small holders who have to provide a livelihood for themselves and their children have to make up the unpaid annuities and unpaid rents on these holdings. Is it not time that the Land Commission got a little active and took over these holdings for division? According to Deputy Dillon, any interference with these gentlemen is a breach of tenant right. I cannot see that there is any breach of tenant right. The cases of these men go before three Land Commissioners who are paid pretty good salaries and who, I am sure, do their work fairly and conscientiously. They were sent on to us by Deputy Roddy and they are still there. If the people whose land is being taken over are not satisfied with the value put on it by these Commissioners, they can go to the Appeal Court. He cannot complain that he will not get a fair price now, because we provided him with two extra judges in the judicial court, to help Judge Wylie, and to see that the proper price is given for the holding. I cannot see in what direction his complaint lies.

I cannot agree with Deputy Bennett that there is any insecurity or any dread in regard to the purchase of land. During the last couple of years holdings in my part of the country realised very large sums, practically as good prices as ever. There is another thing being done in that part of the country that I think would disprove portion of Deputy Bennett's argument. Some of these ranchers are now holding what might be called "mock sales" at which a brother comes along and buys a bit of land, so as to bring the 570-acre farm under the £2,000 mark. Unfortunately the Dáil agreed to that. In such cases a gentleman comes along and starts out as the supposed tenant, and then goes back to England the following day. Meanwhile the holding has been reduced to such a size that the Land Commission cannot touch it, because it is under the £2,000 mark. That type of gentleman can go away leaving unpaid rates and unpaid annuities piling up. We are in the unfortunate position of having £72,000 in unpaid rates in Cork County last year, and an examination of the lists showed that practically 40 per cent. of that amount was due on holdings of from 200 to 700 acres.

An Ceann Comhairle

If the debate widens out to a general discussion on each constituency, in the manner in which portion of Cork is being discussed, there will be nothing to say on the Estimate for the Land Commission.

Mr. Corry

I am explaining the reasons why, in my opinion, instead of having any slackening off in Land Commission activities in acquiring land the division of holdings should be speeded up immensely. I make no secret that I attended cumann meetings in my area at which we discussed the division of these ranches. I am proud of it.

Mr. McMenamin

Giving them their orders.

Mr. Corry

I got mine split up.

Mr. Dillon

The cat is out of the bag.

Mr. Corry

I do not know if even Deputy Dillon would say that he is in favour of 1,100 or even 1,200 acres of land being held by one individual, who does not till, who only employs two men as herds or caretakers, and who leaves £300 in rates to be paid by his neighbours, many of them small farmers with 30 or 40 acres who are trying to make a livelihood for their families, and who gave good service to the country.

Mr. Dillon

Might I reply to the Deputy now?

Mr. Corry

Yes.

Mr. Dillon

I do not approve of Deputy Corry fixing head rents in Cobh or dividing land in Cork. That is not his job.

Mr. Corry

That is Deputy Dillon's opinion; it is not mine.

Mr. Dillon

The cat is growing larger and larger since he got out of the bag.

Mr. Corry

While I can see in my constituency, or in any portion of the Free State, good land lying idle or unworked, while neighbours are paying for it, if it is in my power I am going to see that that land is divided up. That is what the Land Commission is there for, and that is what we are paying inspectors and valuers for.

Mr. Bennett

And to give a fair price, if it is taken.

Mr. Corry

Certainly, to give a fair price. But there is a difference between a fair price and a unjustifiable price.

Mr. Bennett

And the market price.

Mr. Corry

Unfortunately for the people an unjustifiable price was paid for the last ten years, and perhaps longer. I could name at least a half-dozen estates that could be divided up.

An Ceann Comhairle

The administration of the present Government is not under discussion on a Supplementary Estimate, much less the administration of a previous Government.

Mr. O'Leary

We will have that at the cross-roads.

Mr. Corry

When we had it there were very bad results for you. I regret that I brought that in, but when we hear Deputies on the opposite benches making complaints they have to be reminded of other days and of other times, and told what they did when they had power. I am glad to see the Minister coming here and looking for an increased Estimate for the improvement of holdings owing to the acquisition of land. I am glad to see him looking for the money necessary to provide decently for tenants and migrants that have been put into some of the ranches that were divided up. I am glad to see the Minister looking for the finances necessary to compel some of these gentlemen to disgorge land, if necessary. There is one other matter that I would like to deal with in view of Deputy Dillon's statement about building roads through holdings that have been divided. We had experience of that in my constituency, but we were able to get over it easily by getting a bit of relief grant. With the consent of the farmers we were able to extend one road to meet another one and in that way we were able to get practically all these roads taken over by the local authority. Generally on these holdings you find a road which does not connect with another public road, and the local authority has then no power to take it over. We got a relief grant and built the rest of the road, a couple of hundred yards or so, to join with the public road when it came within the statute.

Mr. Dillon

The Deputy will recognise that that cannot be done in every case.

Mr. Corry

There is a way of doing everything if you go the right way about it. I wish the Parliamentary Secretary godspeed in the division of land. I have only one complaint to make, and that is that he could be far better employed in dividing up in my constituency 1,300 acres and 570 acres and the rest of the ranches that are lying there. I can guarantee him good tenants if the land is available, men who served their country through the Tan War and the Civil War.

A Deputy

And in the Land League War.

An Ceann Comhairle

Order!

Mr. Corry

Yes, they served through all the wars, and did their bit like men. The people have been paying for these holdings for eight or nine years because the owners left them idle, and the rates going on. We want to end that kind of thing. Small farmers and tillage farmers have enough to do to work their holdings without having to pay annuities and rates for ranchers. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will send a few of those inspectors for whom, apparently, he has nothing to do, down to the County Cork, where they will find plenty of land to divide and plenty of good men to go into occupation of it afterwards.

Mr. Roddy

It appears to me that Deputy Corry must not be attending properly to the business of his constituents when there are so many thousands of acres of waste land there. I am afraid when the report of his speech is read by his supporters in the "Cork Examiner" to-morrow morning they will not be very much impressed with the case he has put up in their interests to the Land Commission. Deputy Corry has always been in the habit of putting forward extraordinary cases, even when he was in opposition, and when the circumstances were subsequently examined it was found that they bore no relation to the cases he quoted in the Dáil, so that I personally attach very little importance to any statement made by Deputy Corry in regard to Land Commission matters, especially in the days when he was in opposition here.

The estimate for the improvement of estates has undoubtedly increased very substantially during recent years and there is no doubt, in expending the money in the manner in which it is being expended, the Land Commission is creating a capital asset, which is more than can be said for a great deal of the money so foolishly expended by the present Government in so many other directions. I do not understand the anxiety of the Land Commission to procure an increased grant of £120,000 at present for the improvement of estates in view of the fact that the Land Commission at the moment must have some thousands of applications before them for grants recommended during the last two, three or four years by their inspectors throughout the country. I know of cases where grants were recommended at least three years ago for either reconstruction or for the purpose of erecting new houses and these grants have not yet been sanctioned by the Land Commission notwithstanding, as Deputy Corry has reminded us, that the headquarters staff has been very substantially increased during recent years. As a matter of fact, instead of the three commissioners who were functioning under the late Government, there are five commissioners functioning to-day, all of them, I understand, dealing with the ordinary work of Land Commission administration. I have sent numerous letters to the Secretary of the Land Commission in his official capacity complaining of delays that have taken place in the granting of money for the purpose of reconstructing dwellinghouses, erecting new houses, carrying out necessary works of drainage or making the necessary roads on lands divided during the last three or four years.

I do not understand the policy pursued by the Land Commission in regard to the serving of notices on tenants with respect to the visits of inspectors for the purpose of making reports as to the suitability or otherwise of their land for acquisition. It does seem to me that a great deal of insecurity has been created amongst all sorts of farmers, large and small, because of the indiscriminate way in which notices have been served on farmers throughout this State. I will just mention two cases which were brought to my notice during the last few months. In both cases the tenants had purchased out under the 1903 Land Act. In one case the man had two holdings. In the case of one holding, which we will call the home farm, on which he had his dwellinghouse, the area was five Irish acres. The other holding, which was about 1½ miles distant, consisted of 20 Irish acres. Both holdings were worked in a most modern way. They were tilled to the utmost of their capacity and conformed in every respect with the conditions laid down in the Land Act of 1933. Yet this man was served with a notice that the holding consisting of 20 Irish acres was to be visited by an inspector for the purpose of reporting on its suitability for acquisition. That happened only two or three months ago.

In the other instance, a man was living on a holding of 9¼ Irish acres, at least 25 per cent of which was tilled. He had an outlying farm of 15 Irish acres and I am sure that out of that 15 Irish acres three or four were tilled. This holding was managed also in a most modern and efficient way and yet this man was served with a notice that his outlying farm was to be visited by an inspector for the purpose of reporting on its suitability or otherwise for acquisition. These are two of at least 20 cases brought to my notice during the last six months.

The Land Commission is pursuing this policy indiscriminately in other counties as well as the county which I represent. I could quote for the Parliamentary Secretary another instance where the area of land is even smaller and where the owner was served with a notice that one of his two divisions of land was to be visited by an inspector. In the neighbourhood of the two farms to which I have referred there are big areas of land, at least two big farms, for which the Land Commission have been negotiating within the last three or four years with the object of acquiring them. These two big farms would be more than adequate for the relief of congestion in the neighbourhood of the holdings to which I have referred. Only last week another instance was brought under my notice where a similar notice was served on another man whose holdings corresponded in area with the area of the holdings which I have mentioned.

Does the Parliamentary Secretary imagine for one moment that when such a feeling of insecurity exists amongst all classes of farmers, large and small, the State is going to get the results we have been told so frequently they desire to get from the farmers? Surely the Parliamentary Secretary will realise that such a policy, if pursued indiscriminately in the manner in which it is being pursued, will create such a feeling of insecurity that these farmers will lose all interest in their farms and eventually they may be reduced to the position that they are quite prepared to hand the land over to the Land Commission or the Government.

I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary or his Minister to examine personally into the policy which officials are pursuing in regard to this matter that I have mentioned and for goodness' sake let him proclaim publicly if that is their policy and if they mean to adhere to it. If it is not, then he ought to see to it that they will stop it immediately.

There is one item in the Estimate which provides a certain amount for expenses incurred through the settlement of the Gaeltacht colonists in Meath. I would be very much interested to hear the Parliamentary Secretary dilating somewhat on the success which has already attended the settlement of these colonists in County Meath. It does appear that the establishment of Gaelic colonies outside the Gaeltacht is going on the part of the Exchequer.

I would like to ascertain from the Parliamentary Secretary whether it is the policy of his Department to go on subsidising indefinitely this policy of migration from the Gaeltacht to the eastern countries? After all, that policy of migration may turn out in the end to be very expensive, in fact the expense may be so great that it may be entirely uneconomic to continue such a policy beyond the experimental stage. For that reason I submit that it is necessary to examine and to watch this policy of migration very closely. I would be very much interested to hear the Parliamentary Secretary on the results which have attended this migration policy up to the present. I would like, furthermore, to know if he considers that the expense involved in the migration of these colonies has been reasonable, and if, in his opinion, he considers that it is economic. Furthermore, as it does appear to be his policy to go on still further with the migration from the Gaeltacht to the eastern counties, will he say if he is satisfied that that policy can be pursued at a cost which, in his opinion, is reasonable and a cost which the State can afford to bear?

There is one other matter that I think bears directly on sub-head A, the Improvement of Estates, and that is the way in which the land is being divided at the present time. According to the Land Acts, land can only be acquired for the purpose of the relief of congestion. But I notice that, during the last two years especially, land is being utilised for purposes other than the relief of congestion. Land is being distributed in such a manner as will probably lead to the creation of a new land policy in the course of the next 20 or 25 years. It has been laid down, I think, by the present Minister for Lands that an economic holding is a minimum of ten Irish acres or, in other words, it represents a holding of a valuation of, approximately, £10, and that any man with a holding of a lesser valuation than £10 does not possess an economic holding. Is it the policy of the Land Commission to bring these men up to the £10 standard laid down by the Minister, which is part and parcel of the policy at present being pursued? Not at all. At the present moment in the division of land, parcels of one, two or three acres are given out to landless men, with the result that instead of making an impression on the problem of congestion you are widening that problem and you are creating a new problem for some Land Commission in the far distant future. What is the policy of the Land Commission with regard to the distribution of land? Land can only be acquired for one purpose, the relief of congestion. That is clearly laid down in the Land Acts. I submit that the land that is being distributed is not utilised for the relief of congestion. A good deal of the land divided is being distributed in such a manner as to widen the problem of congestion, and it is increasing instead of reducing the number of congests.

I have no objection to landless men and men in labourers' cottages getting land. But if it is the policy of the Land Commission that holdings under £10 valuation are uneconomic, then I ask what is the use in giving an acre or two or three acres of land to a landless man? Is the Minister satisfied that the man can live on two or three acres of land? Does not the Minister realise, as well as we realise, that at some future time such a man will, in order to be given an opportunity of making a livelihood, have to be given as much additional land as will bring that man's valuation up to the £10 standard laid down by the policy of the Land Commission. As a matter of fact, at the moment you have no policy for the relief of congestion. You have a policy really for the socialisation of land. That is the policy that the Land Commission is pursuing and not a policy for the relief of congestion at all. Quite a substantial acreage of the land distributed during the last two years, especially, is being utilised in the manner I have just described. I want the Parliamentary Secretary to inform me, and through me the House, what is the policy of the Land Commission in regard to the distribution of land. Does he mean to follow the standards laid down in the Land Acts, standards which only entitle the Land Commission to acquire land for the specific purpose for which land can be acquired? I have a suspicion that the Land Commission is being drawn to this policy by influences that have recently been brought into it, and that the Land Commission, because of the strength of these influences, has been diverted from the purpose for which it was established—the only legal pur pose for which it exists—and if it is allowed to pursue its present policy indefinitely it will land this country into the position that after a certain number of years we will find the problem of the relief of congestion such that it will be necessary to introduce in another Parliament a Bill for dealing with this question anew.

I notice under sub-head C there is an item relating to "incidental expenses." There is one sub-head under the heading of "advertising." But the Parliamentary Secretary did not at all dilate on that. He offered no explanation as to the purpose for which it was incurred or what was the necessity for this extensive advertising. Does that refer to exclusively to the letting of lands on the 11 or 12 months system, to the sale of the houses, or the letting of timber? To what exactly does it refer? I only raise the point because it seemed to me that that expenditure is abnormal. The Land Commission hitherto did not advertise much. The amount spent was negligible, but a sum of £1,300 in the Supplementary Estimate for the purpose of advertising alone looks rather abnormal and alarming. If it was to be spent for the purpose of broadcasting their policy in regard to some points I have mentioned some of that expenditure might be justified. I notice that the Parliamentary Secretary was rather shy about saying anything in public about his present policy.

Mr. Donnelly

I should like to say a few words before the end of the debate. One thing struck me as remarkable when the Parliamentary Secretary was dealing with this matter in introducing the Estimate to the House, and that was the extraordinary increase in the expenditure in connection with the Land Commission. Personally I rejoice at that, because if there is one portion of our policy which I think we did put to the people as emphatically as any Party ever put a policy to the people it was to put the people back on the land. The Parliamentary Secretary told us that there was an expenditure of £155,106 in 1931-2; that it is estimated that £520,000 will be spent this year; and that last year there was an expenditure of £318,723. Those figures indicate that there is some kind of progress in regard to a matter in which I think every Deputy in this House must be interested. I was surprised indeed to hear all this talk about insecurity of tenure. I was surprised to hear responsible Deputies of this House say that the farmers' credit had gone down owing to the action of the Land Commission in the way it was dealing with the distribution of land to the people of the country. Every Deputy in this House must know that if there is one thing more than another that the people of this country want it is the distribution of land. I was delighted to hear Deputy Bennett to-night say that every penny of the money about which the Parliamentary Secretary told the House has been well spent. The only regret I have is that it was not more. I do not want to wander outside the matter which we are discussing to-night. Some of us perhaps may be inclined to make remarks which would be more relevant on the general Estimates; I do not want to do that. I am convinced that there are very few tenant farmers in Ireland to-night —and I am sure if Deputy Dillon drops the Party attitude for a moment he will realise this—who feel themselves insecure as a result of the action of the Land Commission in dealing with land distribution.

Mr. Dillon

The Deputy is entirely wrong.

Mr. Donnelly

I do not believe that. If the facts are as have been stated here by some Deputies—if farms of 34 acres have been inspected and are being dealt with by the Land Commission, while large estates adjoining those farms are undivided—I would not stand for that.

Mr. McMenamin

You are standing for it.

Mr. Donnelly

I am not. The Parliamentary Secretary, I presume, will be dealing with those features of the matter. I cannot believe that the Land Commission would devote its time and attention to a farm of 34 acres, if, as Deputies of the Party opposite have suggested, there are large ranches of hundreds of acres adjoining those farms, which have not been dealt with. I think that would be very ill-advised, and I for one would not stand for it. In the first case, it would not be correct; in the second place, it would not be to the advantage of the community; and, in the third place, I believe it would be a very bad precedent to set up, and might eventually lead to confusion. Deputy Bennett also referred to the deterioration in land value. He said that nobody would buy; that no farmer would have the heart to do any repairs to his houses or to keep his land in good order. If all this talk about insecurity of tenure is true how do you account for the price paid for land the other day at public auctions? It has been reported in the Press that land in counties not far from here has been sold at £60 an acre. I cannot reconcile that with the statements made to-night by Deputies on the other side. I should like to assure the House, through you, a Leas-Chinn Comhairle, that there is no Deputy in this House more keen than I am on seeing the land distributed quickly. I suppose in common with other Deputies of this House I could paper the Committee Rooms of this House with acknowledgments from the Land Commission and with applications from people looking for land. I believe it is a most urgent matter, and is one of the matters to which the greatest amount of time and attention should be devoted. I believe I am not exaggerating when I say that I do not think there are better farms in any part of Ireland than those in South Leix. Everybody knows the intensive tillage that takes place down there. Notwithstanding that, I know that right in the centre of that particular place there are ranches of 1,000 acres which have not yet been divided. We have tried to get at the Land Commission, I freely admit. Personally I took a new line of action recently in regard to the Land Commission. I stopped annoying the officials with letters. I knew I would get back only the official reply, and I decided that I would take 12 months in which I would write as few letters as possible. I want to state publicly in the Dáil that from the unasked for communications which I got, pointing out the land that had been divided, I found that if I had been writing as many letters as possible in regard to this question I could have got no better results than those which have taken place. In constituencies like Leix where there is intensive tillage — I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to take a note of this and put the matter to the Minister—and where those ranches exist they are a source of irritation and annoyance to the people of those areas, and always will be while those conditions exist.

Mr. Dillon

Did I understand the Deputy when I thought he said that the Land Commission, uninvited, notified him of all the land division that was done in South Leix?

Mr. Donnelly

I received from the office of the Land Commission a letter stating that certain estates had been taken over for division. Those were estates which I had been harping on for quite a long time, and I presume that the officials in the office understood my interest. I was particularly interested in ranches adjoining the famous Luggacurran district, where evictions took place, and where people are living up in the hills on bad land. I was glad to see that at least some steps had been taken in the direction of making grass land available for those people. I am not going to travel outside the scope of this Vote, but I should like to say that during the first year in which the Tuam beet factory was set up had it not been for the intensive tillage that factory would have been a flop. From Kilbrickin station alone 10,000 tons of beet were sent along to Tuam. The average size of the farms in many cases was 20 or 30 acres. Here are farmers with the land tilled practically to the point of exhaustion, and they want more. Yet adjoining those farms there were ranches which were still undivided. I suppose we ought to be grateful for what has been done, but I do say to the Parliamentary Secretary that speed could not be developed to too great an extent in order to help the people in a community such as that. I do not think that I have anything else to say on the subject.

Deputy Roddy talked about the purpose of the Land Commission, and asked what was the main objective to be secured by land distribution. It is to put people back on the land; it is to relieve congestion, if you like to put it in that way; to give land to uneconomic holders and make them economic holders. Then there was a third point which often cropped up in this House, and that was the purpose of putting back on the land the descendants of evicted tenants.

These are the three headings of what I always understood and believed to be the policy of the Government in land division. I still believe it. It can all be summed up in the words—get the people back on the land. When Deputy Dillon perhaps has been making an attack on the Government about certain forms of our policy and saying that we were ruining the country, I have often put the query, "Why is there such an urge to get land?" My object in putting the query was that a man who is married and has a family and who has a little land is always sure of some food for himself and his family and of shelter and has a stake in the country. It is an instinctive trait in the character of an Irishman to have a stake in the country. I believe that one of the greatest things we could do, leaving aside domestic differences that may take place from time to time, would be by the common goodwill of all Parties to pass three times the amount of money we are passing in order to see the land distributed quickly, economically, efficiently, fairly, and justly. I do not believe in the example given by Deputy Dillon about Deputies urging in their branches of our organisation that certain land must be divided in a certain way. I would not stand for that. I believe in justice and fair play.

Mr. Dillon

Tell Deputy Corry that.

Mr. Donnelly

Perhaps Deputy Corry's method of putting the thing to the House may be misinterpreted or misunderstood. I would not stand for that; nobody on these benches would. I do not believe that because a man is Fine Gael in politics he ought to be victimised. We never did that; that is why we are here. I make that statement boldly. We have never victimised any person on account of politics, as far as I know.

Mr. Dillon

You remember the fate of Ananias.

Mr. Cosgrave

You made that statement after looking at the clock.

Mr. Donnelly

If Deputy Cosgrave wants it he can take the time for this statement. It is now almost 25 minutes to ten, and Deputy Cosgrave can take that statement, that while we are here as a Government, while the present Executive Council are here as Ministers, and while the rank and file are here, we will make it a point not to victimise anybody and do our best to give justice and fair play to everybody.

Mr. Corry

I should like to make a point of explanation.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Of personal explanation?

Mr. Corry

Yes. I understand from Deputy Dillon and others that they seem to have misinterpreted my statement in regard to appeals from Fianna Fáil Clubs.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That is not a personal explanation. The Deputies on the other side of the House are entitled to construe correctly, according to Deputy Corry's idea, or to construe incorrectly, according to Deputy Corry's idea, just as they choose.

Mr. Corry

I only wish to explain what exactly I did say.

Mr. Dillon

This is discretion being the better part of valour.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

This is another speech, and I call on Deputy McMenamin.

Mr. McMenamin

This matter has been pretty well thrashed out. It is rather amusing to have introduced into this House the claptrap of the cross-roads. According to Deputy Donnelly, the policy is to put the people back on the land; to give them as much land as will grow food for themselves and their families. That is good stuff for the chapel gate on Sunday. I wonder did Deputy Donnelly appreciate the point raised by Deputy Dillon and reinforced by Deputy Roddy of the principle in this and the implications of the principle involved. Of course it would never occur to Deputy Corry as he is incapable of appreciating it. "Put the people back on the land"—such claptrap! Is the allegation made here by Deputy Dillon and Deputy Roddy true or not? They cited cases. It has been denied that it is true.

Mr. Corry

What is the statement?

Mr. McMenamin

I will give another case.

Mr. Corry

Give us that one.

Mr. McMenamin

It is a very serious case. If I am to be interrupted by Deputy Corry I shall look after Deputy Corry if I have to.

Mr. Corry

You are a lawyer and that is enough about it.

Mr. McMenamin

I will give the House another case. A man advertised a portion of land for sale and some man in the neighbourhood bought it. I do not want to give names or figures because this has to go on. The man signed a contract for purchase and requisitions on title were served. When the requisitions were answered it was disclosed that the land had been inspected. When the purchaser saw the answer to this requisition he refused to complete the purchase because he had contracted to give a big price, and the price he would get from the Land Commission would be infinitesimal. The vendor has now served a writ on him for specific performance of his contract. The figures in this case are substantial. If that case goes into the courts and is published in the Press who in this country is going to buy land at any sort of price in future? Further, counsel have advised the purchaser that in law he is bound to complete his contract.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Is this case before the courts?

Mr. McMenamin

No. I am not mentioning names.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Did the Deputy say something about an application for specific performance of the contract being brought before the courts?

Mr. McMenamin

No. What I said was that the vendor had asked for specific performance. Surely that will convince Deputy Donnelly that, if this policy is being pursued and we believe these are things that will lead to trouble and to the depreciation of the value of land in this country, it is our duty to deal with them and bring them before the Government and let them see whether they are true or not. I believe that Deputy Roddy's allegation is perfectly true—that the purpose of the Land Commission has become completely diverted. What is the purpose of the Land Commission? What was it created for? The Land Commission was created for three purposes. First, as a conduit pipe between landlord and tenant, and when the landlords were purchased out to collect the interest on the money advanced and pay the interest thereon. Secondly, to improve estates; and, thirdly, to relieve congestion by taking over large tracts of land that were not tenanted.

Is the Land Commission being diverted from that purpose! I am not blaming anybody. I am not making any allegation as to who is the cause of it. Surely it has been diverted. What is the result of that? Take land from anybody. I submit that no tenanted land should be taken over except at the market price and, if at all possible, that no tenanted land should be taken over at all, because the whole land war was carried on in order that these people should become tenant purchasers.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Has the Land Commission power to take over tenanted land?

Mr. O'Leary

They tried it, anyway.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I am looking for information because, if there is legislation, we cannot discuss it. If the Dáil has given power to the Land Commission to take over land of a certain kind, clearly we cannot discuss whether they should or not.

Mr. Dillon

Surely, Sir, we are entitled to discuss how they should use the powers entrusted to them?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Yes, but the Deputy is discussing whether or not the Land Commission should take it over.

Mr. Dillon

I understood that he was discussing the way in which they take over land.

Mr. McMenamin

The Land Commission have got powers to take over land of various kinds. Now, when the 1933 Act was going through this House, we had a definite undertaking from the Minister that the land would be taken over at its market value. It is hardly necessary to point out to anybody in this House or in the country that that is not being done, and the result of that is nobody is going to buy a farm of land at any sort of a decent price, or at any price at all, because if he pays a price for it, it will be the market price, and if he pays the market price notice will be served on him the next day and the value of his land will be reduced by one-third.

Mr. Donnelly

Not necessarily.

Mr. McMenamin

What is the use in talking? Where is the use in, say, taking me from a congested district and putting me on a farm in County Meath when, in a few years, you are to come in and inspect that land and put, say, Deputy Donnelly in my place? Is it going to be a procession of this kind—put out McMenamin, put in Donnelly, then put out Donnelly and put in O'Leary? The whole purpose of the setting up of the Land Commission was to get security, and is not this present policy going to strike at the very foundation of security? If you are going to destroy that security, all this policy of the improvement of estates and the making of roads and so on is not worth anything. All these improvements of estates and building of roads and so on are worth nothing compared with that issue. You are striking at the root of land tenure in this country, and if you do that, then you can go on improving estates, making roads, dividing holdings, and putting people on these holdings, but it will be worth nothing. If you destroy security, what is the use of taking a man and his family and putting them on a holding? It is going to be a vicious circle and, as Deputy Dillon says, it is going to lead to worse than the land war. It is going to be far worse than the cases of Clanrickarde or Barrymore or the other landlords. It must be remembered that this is a country where the roots of the land war still exist. The agrarian spirit is still there and you can very easily rekindle it. Even Deputy Donnelly's speech, the burden of which was, "Put the people on the land," shows that that spirit is there. It has always been there. That policy was preached by Irish politicians in this country 40 and 50 years ago.

Mr. Donnelly

And is it not right?

Mr. McMenamin

Surely it is right, but on what principle are you going to enforce it? That is the question. If it is a question of putting one man in one day and putting him out the next day, where is that going to lead to? Is it going to lead to permanency, stability or security? Everybody knows that it is not, but, of course, that kind of talk is very good for the claptrap at the cross-roads and at the chapel gates.

Mr. Donnelly

We put it across you there.

Mr. McMenamin

You did not. Nobody ever put anything across me. A lie will always be overtaken sooner or later. Make no mistake about that. Deputy Donnelly can rest assured also that all this stuff he puts over will be overtaken.

Mr. Dillon

He has reason to know that, indeed, it was overtaken.

Mr. McMenamin

I want the Parliamentary Secretary to tell the House on what principle they are proceeding with regard to the acquisition of land. I do not mind them taking over farms of land if they are going to pay the market price for them. It may be a very expensive thing to take farms over at the market price, but one effect it will have is that the Government will indicate to the country that the man who pays £1,000 for land to-day will be able to get the same amount to-morrow. I agree with what Deputy Roddy and Deputy Dillon said. If security of tenure is going to be destroyed I regret it profoundly, and if that thing is going to happen I would prefer to be out of public life altogether. Cases have been given by Deputy Dillon and by Deputy Roddy, who is an ex-Parliamentary Secretary for Lands, and who knows more about this thing than any of us. I also have given my case. We can prove these cases and can give the facts, and we can give the names if necessary. They cannot be denied. Is the Government going to pursue that policy? If so, the policy is going to lead to chaos and anarchy and another land war which will be worse than ever before because, in the past, it was not a case of every holding in the country but only of a few big landlords in Ireland. In this case, however, every farmer in the country will be affected. There will be no security of tenure for any farmer, no matter what kind of a holding he has. Does Deputy Donnelly approve of that?

Mr. Donnelly

No. It is not going to happen.

Mr. McMenamin

Will Deputy Donnelly help us to prevent it happening? I should like the House and the country to get a definite undertaking from the Parliamentary Secretary that this policy will not be pursued. The making of roads and the improvements of estates, and so on, are not worth anything if that policy is going to be pursued. On what principle is this land policy proceeding? That question should be answered to-night, and I should like the Parliamentary Secretary, on behalf of himself and the Government, to give us an undertaking that they will not take any steps to interfere with security of tenure in this country and that men who invest money in land as an investment and for the love of being on the land will be left there in security. If, on the contrary, there should be hidden or partially hidden influences operating and directing the policy of the Land Commission, I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to get his back up against that and put his foot down on it and tell these people that that cannot be done. That policy, if it is pursued, will lead to ruination, and if we are to deal with the land on that principle, or rather lack of principle, the land will not be worth giving to the people.

Mr. Victory

Like Deputy Donnelly, I only regret that the Estimate is not larger than it is. At the last election, if there was anything made clear to the electorate it was that, if we were returned to power, we were going to make this country as self-supporting and as self-sufficing as possible. How are we going to do that——

Mr. Dillon

By virtue of the coal-cattle past.

Mr. Victory

—— when 75 per cent. of the output of the whole people of the country is agriculture? Would any Deputy in this House stand for the conditions prevailing in parts of my county, where you have in a number of electoral divisions five units with an average valuation of £4 10s. or £5, and where there is good land nearby where they did not pay rent for three years?

Mr. O'Leary

Why did not the Land Commission take it over?

Mr. Victory

That is just the point. I do not stand for these little petty things of trying to do an injustice to any man, but where I find five units with an average valuation of £4 10s. and find five or six people herded into one holding—willing to earn their living if they were given an opportunity—I think it is the duty of this House and of the Land Commission to give these people an opportunity of earning their living. We hear a lot of talk in this House about unemployment and as to what we should do to relieve it. There are hundreds of young men in my own county, some of them even with a fair amount of money who, if they get an opportunity of working and developing land, would do so. I am rather shocked that any section in this House should use the argument that the Land Commission should not proceed with the division of land, more particularly when those unfortunate holders in County Longford, to whom I have referred, who have paid their own rates and land annuities, will have to pay an additional rate because of the failure of the people owning up to 300 acres to pay their annuities. I urge upon the Parliamentary Secretary to proceed with the division of land as quickly as possible, and I only regret that the Estimate for that purpose is not larger. The country is crying out for the division of land, and it is our duty to proceed with it.

Mr. O'Leary

I have no desire to speak at any great length on this Estimate, but I should like to put a question to Deputy Donnelly. Deputy Donnelly has talked about the state of the agricultural industry in this country, as represented by the Deputies on these benches, and he afterwards referred to the price paid for certain lands down the country. I would ask Deputy Donnelly have the people who bought that land any guarantee that it will not be taken from them?

Mr. Donnelly

Of course not.

Mr. O'Leary

Do you not know that the Land Commission have power to go in and take it over?

Mr. Donnelly

They are not going to do anything unreasonable.

Mr. Keating

A Chinn Comhairle——

Mr. O'Leary

I beg your pardon, I have not finished. I ask Deputy Donnelly has the Land Commission power to take over that land?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy cannot proceed by way of question and answer. Let Deputy O'Leary make his own speech. Whether that is a rhetorical question or not I do not know, but let him make his own speech.

Mr. O'Leary

It is a commonsense question, a question to which An Leas-Cheann Comhairle might not unreasonably allow the Deputy to reply. I ask the Deputy this further question. If he purchased British Bonds or British War Loan, would he like to be compelled to sell them at any time at the world market price? I know of people who support the Deputy's Party and who spoke recently in Cork and one of them referred to the fact that he got more in dividends out of investments he had made in the Free State than he had got out of investments made in England. I ask the Deputy why should those people who went outside the country to invest their money enjoy security while the unfortunate people who invested all they had in their land, who put their money into land with a view to providing for their families, are to be robbed and punished? I remember the land agitation over a 50 years period. I went out in my bare feet in the snow in order to help them to carry on the land agitation. I have a very lively recollection of it, and I never thought that the effect of that agitation would be destroyed by an Irish Government. I want to be quite clear on this question. I am out for the division of land, but I am not out for the robbery of people who own land in this country. Deputy Corry tried to confuse the issue raised by Deputy Dillon to-night by referring to cases of people with 1,100 or 1,200 acres or was it 12,000 acres?

Mr. Corry

1,200 acres.

Mr. O'Leary

That is not the issue. Nobody objects to the taking over of lands such as these and nobody ever did, but we object to taking land from people who put their money quite honestly into it, without any objection from people in the neighbourhood when they took over these lands. I do not want to carry on the debate much further because everybody knows the injustice of these cases. I again ask Deputy Donnelly will he say whether the Land Commission have not power to take over the lands he mentioned a while ago? As Cork has been mentioned, I may say that the special squad have been very busy in Cork for some time past. The Minister introduced here some time ago a Bill to make the costs of collection of land annuities smaller than they were under the old régime. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to explain what has become of the money collected by the special squad when they go round to 15 small farmers in one area and collect £2 from each of them? I would ask him to explain what becomes of that money. They collected in all £30 from these 15 farmers. What becomes of that, and where does it go to?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I do not think the Parliamentary Secretary is obliged to answer that.

Mr. O'Leary

I have put the question to him, at any rate.

Mr. Dillon

I submit, with all respect, that the question is quite in order. In this Estimate there is shown a saving on other sub-heads. There is a saving in respect to fees which it was intended to pay for collections under warrants issued under the 1933 Land Act which have been rendered unnecessary by the case of the Attorney-General versus a certain party.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Does that arise under this Estimate?

Mr. Dillon

Yes, it arises under the savings and other sub-heads.

Mr. Cosgrave

There is a saving shown of £48,374.

Mr. Keating

In County Wexford notices have been served on farmers living on farms of 29 to 90 acres which they have worked to the best advantage, stating that an inspector will visit their lands with a view to their acquisition. We have no ranchers in Wexford owning 1,200 or 1,300 acres such as Deputy Corry referred to as existing in County Cork and we do not want them. We want the land for the people, but is it fair to take over the lands of a farmer who has only a farm of 29 or 90 acres? We have ten cases of that kind in Wexford, and I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to get these notices withdrawn. If the attempt is persisted in it will not be allowed to finish. We will give a present to Deputy Corry of the people who want the land of those farmers and he can provide for them on the ranches in Cork.

Mr. Corry

We have enough of our own crowd to provide for there.

Mr. Keating

Well, keep it for them and do not be upsetting people who are living on economic holdings and who are giving good employment. There is one case in Wexford of a man who has only 29 acres. He employs four agricultural labourers and two domestic servants and has 80 per cent. of his land tilled. We have another case of a farmer living on 90 acres who has been served with notice. Remember these men's fathers and grandfathers lived on this land, and the boys of Wexford are not going to stand taking the land off them. I am sure Deputy Donnelly will not stand for it either. By all means buy out the ranches, but is it fair to take these comparatively small farms from men who are giving good employment? I know the farmer holding 90 acres whose case has been referred to. I know him from childhood. He employs five agricultural labourers and two domestic servants. He employs additional hands during the busy season. He is a man who has a wife and three children, yet he has been served with notice that in due course an inspector will inspect his land. Does Deputy Corry stand for that?

Mr. Corry

No.

Mr. Keating

Then I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to have these notices withdrawn.

Donnchadh O Briain

Deineadh a lán cainnte mar gheall ar talamh 'san díospóireacht seo. Deineadh an Meastachain seo do phlé i dtaobh feirm talmhan thíos i gCo. Luiminighe go bhfuil ó Choimisiún na Talmhan é thógaint suas chun é roinnt idir na feirmeóirí beaga agus na lucht oibre sa chomharsanacht san. 'Sé feirm Risteárd Uí Chearbhaill i gCill tSíle atá i gceist agam. Ní raibh cuid againn sásta go mbacfhadh Coimisiún na Talmhan leis an bhfeirm sin ach ba shuimiúl an rud dá n-innstí do'n Dáil cé h-iad na daoine a iarr ar Coimisiún na Talmhan an fheirm sin do thógaint. Tá súil agam go n-innseochaidh an Dáil-Rúnaí dúinn cé h-iad an dream i gCill tSíle a cur iarratas sin go dtí an Coimisiún á éileamh go dtógfaí an feirm seo go bhfuil cainnt go leor faoi chun a roinnte. Tá's agam ná raibh baint nó páirt ag lucht leanamhna Fianna Fáil i gCill tSíle leis an iarratas a cuireadh isteach chun na feirme sin do thógaint, agus ní rabhadar sásta cur isteach ar an bhfeirm sin cor ar bith.

Seumas O Diolúin

Maith an fear.

Donnchadh O Briain

Tá rud eile a bhainnean leis an Meastacháin seo go mba mhaith liom tagairt beag do dhéannamh dó. Níor airigheas aon tagairt dó san díospóireacht seo fós. 'Sé an rud atá i gceist agam na aistriúcháin muinntir na Gaeltachta go dtí Conndae na Midhe. Obair maith 'seadh é atá dá dhéanamh ag an gCoimisiún maidir leis na daoine seo agus molaim go mór go leanfar leis an obair sin go tréan. Obair costasach 'seadh e agus tá's agam go bhfuil morán deachrachtaí ag baint leis, ach is fiu do'n tír an costas sin, agus is ceart na daoine seo do thabhairt o'n nGaeltacht go dtí na tailte maite i lár na tíre seo chótapaidhe agus is feidir é do dhéanamh. Tá súil agam go dtabharfai cuid mhaith acu go dtí Conndae na Midhe agus Conndaethe eile i mbliana. Tá súil ag Gaelgeóiri na tíre go leanfar go dian leis an obair agus molaim go mor an Rialtas de bharr a bhfuil déanta acu in a thaoibh sin cheana.

Mr. R. Holohan

There are a few remarks I should like to make in connection with the division of land in the country. From time to time we see advertisements in the local papers in every county of numbers of farms which are up for sale. If the Land Commission want to get land for division why do they not send representatives to those auctions to purchase land in the open market and pay a reasonable price for it instead of taking land from farmers of the type to which Deputy O'Leary and Deputy Keating have referred who are working their land and giving employment? If the Land Commission want land for division those farms are being offered for sale all over the country, and they could be purchased and used for that purpose instead of taking farms over from men who are working their land and giving good employment. There will be very little objection by any member of this House to taking over for division ranches of 1,300 and 1,400 acres which are worked by a man and a dog, and which give little employment, but it is unfair to take the land off the type of man to whom I have referred.

The Land Commission should seriously consider the harm and damage they are doing to such people in taking over for £300 or £400 farms into which men may have put £2,000 or £3,000 five or ten years ago. It is not fair play or honesty for a Government to do that. Whatever purchase is made it should be made on the value of the land, even though the money paid for the land could not be paid back by the intending tenant. There should be some regulation made whereby the Government could step in and pay portion of the money so that the land could be given to the tenant at a rent he could pay. That is all I have to say in connection with the division of land.

The other point to which I wish to refer is the question of the giving of land to men without a certain amount of capital, who are not in a position to work that land. That is useless waste. It is merely waste to give land to a man without capital.

Mr. O'Leary

And let them ranch it again, as they are doing.

Mr. Holohan

Whatever way they would manage to work their bit of land they should make some attempt to till it and put it into use. I know several people who took over eight or ten acres of land under the previous Government and that land has been let for grazing or set for meadowing since they got it. I do not regard that as working land. What advantage is that to the State?

Mr. Kennedy

Take it off them again.

Mr. Holohan

I would not recommend that. Let them work it, and tell them what is going to happen if they do not work it.

Mr. O'Leary

They were not permanent tenants for five years under the previous Government. Now they are appointed on the day they get into the land.

Mr. Holohan

I say to the Government that, day after day, there are farms offered for sale in the papers. Let the Government buy land in the open market and pay a fair price for it, and if they want to give that land to tenants afterwards, let them put up a certain amount of money, so that the tenant will not have to pay the full amount to the original occupier and so that he will have an opportunity of paying his rent.

Mr. Anthony

In other circumstances, I think every member of the House would welcome a Supplementary Estimate of almost £76,000 for the purposes of the Land Commission Vote, but the uneasiness that exists amongst a very large section of the farming community in this country has found expression here this evening in the speeches made by Deputies Dillon, Roddy, McMenamin, Keating and my colleague from Kilkenny. There can be no doubt about it in the minds of anybody, even of the non-farming class in the country, or anybody who has any contact at all with the farming community, as most of the members of this House have—the constituency I repre sent, while a city constituency, embraces many thousands of farmers, although, of course, under the new Constituency Bill that will cease to operate—that the questions put up by the Deputies whom I have named demand a reply and indeed an explanation as to the whole policy of the Land Commission in future.

There is one aspect of the situation which I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to consider. Indeed, I would go further and ask the Minister for Lands to convey to his colleagues on the Executive Council the message which I think has already been conveyed to him from the country. It is a very easy step, according to the policy being pursued now, from resuming at their own price land mentioned by Deputy Keating and others, which people have bought at the market price to taking over businesses. There is the famous case in County Limerick which it is not necessary for me to repeat here; it is well known to the Parliamentary Secretary and to the Government. I am in favour of dividing land, and I believe the policy of "back to the land" is a good one, although I might remark that I know very few people who have left the land and who enjoy any kind of lucrative position who are any way anxious to get back to the land. I can hardly visualise Deputy Donnelly going back or many other members of the Government Benches. The point I wish to emphasise is that it is a very easy step, under these conditions, and in the circumstances under which land is being acquired now, from acquiring land to the acquisition of business premises. It may be said that some merchants or traders are not carrying on their business to the advantage of the community. Will the Parliamentary Secretary say to me that the Government will take over those premises and those undertakings?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Is the Deputy not discussing the principle underlying the legislation by which they acquire land now?

Mr. Anthony

I am uttering this note of warning because it is a very easy step from the policy that is at present being pursued by the Land Commission in acquiring the land of industrious farmers at the price that it fixes itself to a communistic State when you can acquire industries and other undertakings in the country. Now, there is a very strong analogy there, an analogy which I hope the Parliamentary Secretary and the Land Commission will bear in mind. We must have an answer to the question put by several Deputies, as to whether it is the studied policy of the Land Commission to acquire the land of farmers who are farming their land as well as they have been trained to do it. Is it the policy of the Land Commission to go to a farmer whose father and grandfather fought for the land they hold, and say that they are going to acquire it? These are questions that, I think, require an answer from the Parliamentary Secretary. I emphasise the point that I have already made that it is a very easy step indeed from acquiring the land of honest, hard-working, thrifty and frugal farmers who are farming their land in the best interests of themselves and their families to acquiring the business undertakings in this country.

It may be, of course, that the urge for this policy comes from outside this House. It may come from some organisations operating under the guise of national organisations but which are really communistic in character. The Parliamentary Secretary must be aware, as I am aware, that there is very grave uneasiness in the minds of many farmers in the country, of many industrious, hardworking men who now believe that the title to their land is not worth a pinch of snuff. All that, I think, has been brought about by the policy of the Land Commission within recent years. We want to be assured, the country in general wants to be assured, and the people on the land want to be assured that their title is worth something.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Parliamentary Secretary to conclude.

Mr. O'Grady

I am pleased with one aspect of the debate, and it is that Deputies on all sides of the House seem to appreciate the good work which the Land Commission is doing in speeding up the division of land. Deputy Dillon expressed anxiety regarding the Gaeltacht colonies. That anxiety was echoed by other Deputies who have spoken, notably by Deputy Bartley and Deputy O Briain who thoroughly approved of the experiment which is being carried out at Athboy. Deputy Dillon seemed to express some uneasiness, and his views were endorsed by other speakers on the opposite benches. I would remind the House that it is rather early yet to form a considered opinion as to the value of that experiment, but so far as it has gone I am pleased to be able to inform the House that the first 16 families migrated to Athboy have had a very satisfactory year during the past season. They have had a bumper harvest; their crops have been well up to the standard which obtains locally, and for the first time in the lives of many of them they have been enabled to kill a pig for the Christmas as well as having what, perhaps, they did not have in the areas from which they came, namely, a plentiful supply of milk, of butter and of all the other necessaries of life.

So far, so good. That policy is being watched very carefully by the Government, and if it proves satisfactory, as I think everybody who has the interests particularly of the people of the Gaeltacht at heart will be anxious that it should, I think that no Deputy in this House, will grudge the money which is spent on the migration of these people who in the past have endured untold hardships endeavouring to eke out an existence from the barren rocks in many parts of the west.

The next matter to which Deputy Dillon referred was the making of roads. He pointed out that the Land Commission, when dividing estates, makes roads into the houses for the allottees. That is quite correct. But the Land Commission consider that when they have divided an estate and provided homesteads for those allottees who require such homes, and have made roads into their homesteads for them, their duty is finished. When the Land Commission have done that: when the lands have been fenced, and the homes provided for these people on that estate, they regard the job as well done. We think that the obligation for the maintenance of these roads rests upon another authority. I, personally, would be glad to see either the local authority or the Department of Local Government taking up the question of roadmaking, bearing in mind, at the same time, that there are other old roads all over the country which were made long before the Land Commission came into being, and that the tenants on them would have an equal claim to that of the tenants on the estates which are now being divided to have their roads also made by the Land Commission.

Considerable apprehension has been expressed by many Deputies on the opposite benches about the policy of the Government regarding the acquisition of land—of tenanted land, and the land of smallholders. I can assure Deputies that we are just as anxious as they are, or as other people outside this House are, to avoid interference with the ordinary tenant farmers. It is not the policy of the Government to interfere with such, and if any undue and unnecessary anxiety is being created in the minds of farmers all over the country: if, as alleged by Deputies on the opposite side, farmers are uneasy as to their fixity of tenure, and that as a result of that uneasiness the value of land has depreciated in the country, the chief cause of that in my humble opinion are the speeches made by Deputies on the opposite benches for purely political purposes.

Mr. O'Leary

Nonsense!

Mr. O'Grady

The case has frequently been adverted to about the now famous incident in connection with the holding of the Carrolls in West Limerick.

Mr. Dillon

And of Devereux in Wexford.

Mr. Keating

What was the meaning of serving this notice on a Wexford farmer?

Mr. O'Grady

I did not interrupt the Deputy when he was speaking.

Mr. T. Kelly

The Parliamentary Secretary has only a quarter of an hour to reply, and Deputies should give him a chance to tell the country the truth.

Mr. O'Grady

According to the statements made from the opposite benches, the owner of this land paid £3,000 for it during the peak year of values, round about the year 1924. That land, for which at that time he paid £3,000, has since been acquired by the Land Commission. It was an outside, nonresidential holding. Does any Deputy on the opposite benches maintain that £3,000 for a holding of that size is its fair marketable value? If £3,000 is to be paid for every holding of that size, what is it going to cost to divide all the lands in the country which are to be acquired for division and paid for at that price? In every instance, the fair marketable value of holdings acquired by the Land Commission is paid for them, and in many instances it is known that even more than the market value has been paid for them.

Apart from that altogether, the question of the price to be paid for land is one that is determined not by the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary, but by a special tribunal set up under the Land Acts, and in the 1933 Land Act the Minister specially divested himself of the power of determining the price to be paid for any such land. A judicial tribunal has been set up, and any owner of land about to be acquired has the right to appeal to that tribunal. In this famous instance, the owner did appeal and made his case before the tribunal, with the result that, through that tribunal was one set up by this Government, which is accused of political victimisation and a lot of other misdeeds, the amount of money which was originally suggested as the proper value of that holding was increased by a considerable sum.

Mr. Dillon

I did not accuse you of political victimisation. On the contrary, I went out of my way to say that I knew the man was not a supporter of ours and that I rather thought he had greater affection for Fianna Fáil.

Mr. T. Kelly

You are only taking up time.

Mr. Dillon

Go to sleep again.

Mr. O'Grady

I accept the Deputy's correction with regard to that particular case. But, underlying the Deputy's argument—I do not think the Deputy will deny this or alter it —there was a suggestion of political victimisation of certain tenants and there was also the insinuation that the question of land division was one for Fianna Fáil clubs.

Mr. Dillon

Yes.

Mr. O'Grady

That was repeated by many Deputies on the opposite benches.

Mr. Dillon

I repeat it now.

Mr. O'Grady

I say that that allegation is without any foundation whatever. The Deputy cannot cite a single case in support of it.

Mr. Dillon

Deputy Corry notwithstanding.

Mr. O'Grady

Deputy Corry, or any other Deputy, notwithstanding. The policy of the Land Commission is not determined by any Deputy or by any club or Cumann, blue, black or green.

Mr. Corry

Let Deputy Dillon read what I said, if he is not too thick to understand it.

Mr. O'Grady

It is quite possible that Deputies, in any organisation to which they may belong, may discuss at meetings of that organisation the division and acquisition of land. Even Deputy Dillon has been known to do that. If Deputy Corry or any other Deputy has done likewise, I do not consider it is an awful crime. But I should like to assure the House that the question as to the lands to be acquired is one outside the purview of any organisation or any Party or any individual. The determination of the lands to be acquired or of persons from whom land is to be acquired is not one for either the Minister or the Party to which the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary belong.

Mr. Anthony

May I ask a question with regard to the 40 acre man

Mr. T. Kelly

You want to take up time.

Mr. O'Leary

There was a time when your Party wanted to sit over Christmas.

Mr. O'Grady

If allegations are to be made by Deputies on the opposite benches, then I invite them to cite a single case where land has been acquired at the instigation of a Fianna Fáil club or in which people have been given land because of representations from a Fianna Fáil club, or because of undue influence by any member of the Fianna Fáil organisation. It is open to members of Fianna Fáil clubs or any other organisation to make representations to the Land Commission. These are examined on their merits —and on their merits alone. The inspectors of the Land Commission have explieit instructions as to the classes of people to whom land must be given. As I have said, the Minister expressly divested himself of that power in order to establish a machine which would be absolutely impartial and above and beyond the influence of any Party in power, either now or in the future. It is a judicial tribunal.

Mr. Dillon

Well may Deputy Corry laugh.

Mr. O'Grady

Deputy Bennett has referred to delay in the distribution of land. I think that all will agree that considerable speed has been maintained in this respect. While there will be considerable delay in certain instances, I hold that there has been remarkable progress during the past year or two in the division of estates. To-day, officials of the Land Commission and the inspectorate staff are being driven as they were never driven before, but there is a limit to their endurance and capacity. Even yet, they are not going ahead as speedily with the division of land as I should personally like to see them go. I should like, if possible, to see the output of the Land Commission trebled year by year.

Mr. Donnelly

Get more officials and more inspectors.

Mr. O'Grady

There is a limit to the output of our staff. Some Deputies asked why the Land Commission should not go into the open market and buy land. Let us have some common sense. Assume that a farm is up for sale in Limerick or any other county and it is known that a buyer is coming down from the Land Commission. We have heard of puffers at auctions and the vendor would probably arrange that some friends would come along. Would not that be occurring all over the country? What price would have to be paid in these circumstances?

Mr. O'Leary

Send down John Brown to outbid him.

Mr. Holohan

Why not get a solicitor to bid?

Mr. O'Grady

The solicitor would be well known.

Mr. Anthony

As the jurors were well known.

Mr. O'Grady

Deputy Roddy referred to the serving of notices of inspection on small holders. It is not the general policy of the Land Commission to serve notices of inspection on small holders, nor is it the policy of the Land Commission to acquire such small holdings. As I stated in a reply to a question the other day, inspectors in the course of their duty are supposed to take note of and report to the Land Commission any large holdings in their area, because if the Land Commission is to acquire land it must be in possession of this knowledge. It is for that reason that inspectors are expected to report on land that comes to their notice in the course of their duty. Deputy Roddy referred to the relief of congestion and to £10 valuation as the standard of an economic holding. It is an instruction to Land Commission inspectors that, where land is up for division, they are to give preference to uneconomic holders—that is, to all people under £10 valuation. That is probably what has given rise to the Deputy's view that that standard has been set up for economic holdings. I do not think that any further important point remains to be dealt with and the time limit has been almost reached.

Mr. Dillon

If the Parliamentary Secretary wishes to go on until 10.30, we shall not challenge a division but will move an amendment to the Appropriation Bill.

Mr. O'Grady

Deputy Roddy referred to an item of £1,300 under (c) for extra advertisements and asked for an explanation. The explanation is that extra advertisements had to be inserted to obtain contractors owing to the large number of extra houses and housing schemes all over the country. For that reason, the estimate is not exceptional. Deputy Corry referred to unpaid rates by non-residents and to the speeding up of land division. I can only repeat that everything possible is being done to speed up land division and inspectors have special instructions to look after non-residential holdings and holdings which are not being worked in accordance with the proper methods of husbandry. I think I have covered any points that have been made, except that I might refer to Deputy Anthony's warning against Communism, and that farmers are getting uneasy about the title to land. Well, I think that is a speculation that is scarcely deserving of notice.

Mr. O'Leary

There was a question with regard to the cost of the flying squads.

Mr. O'Grady

That would be a more appropriate question for the Department of Justice. It is not one for the Land Commission.

Question put and agreed to.

Estimate reported.