I dealt yesterday evening with some of the principal items that had been raised in the discussion on the Estimate. I have still to deal with a few items, some of them of minor importance, and some of them rather important items. Before I get to the body of the material, I should like to refer to one question raised by Deputy Davin with regard to the number of objections and appeals lodged during the last two years. There were, in 1934-5, approximately 150 objections, and and in 1935-6, 230 objections to the acquisition of lands. There were before the Appeals Tribunal in 1931-2, 19 appeals, and in 1932-3, 18 appeals. In 1933-4 there is no record of any appeals as the 1933 Lands Bill was not yet really operating then. In 1934-5 there were 123 appeals, and in 1935-6, 196 appeals. A number of Deputies, including Deputy Mulcahy, raised questions with regard to the statistical information which could be secured from the Land Commission. Deputy Mulcahy had several questions some time ago on this matter, and at the time I asked the Department to see in how far we could improve our statistical information. Deputy Roddy was here last evening, and he endorsed all that Deputy Mulcahy said. It occurred to me that it was rather interesting, and strange perhaps that this question of statistics in the great detail in which the Deputy wishes them, was not raised many years ago. However, that is merely an side. I personally am in favour of having the maximum amount of analyses and statistics available, not only for Deputies but for the public generally, and for the guidance of the Department. I have a minute from the Department which I shall read out. Perhaps it will explain, at any rate, what we hope to do.
The statistics of the Land Commission in regard to the division of untenanted land have been regulated by the practical difficulty of securing detailed information without unduly occupying the time of the officials actually engaged on the work of resale schemes. The information recorded was limited to such details as were likely to be of primary interest to the public and of value for Departmental purposes. It was only in the Land Commission Report for the year ended 31st March, 1935, that the allotment figures were first shown under the separate heads of new holdings and enlargements of existing holdings. In the same way, the records of improvement sanctions and expenditure were kept by estates as a whole, and not segregated under the heads of new holdings and enlargements. A practical difficulty at once arises in attempting such a segregation, as on estates divided there is necessarily considerable expenditure for general improvements, such as drainage, roads, etc., which would have to be apportioned in order to ascertain the total cost of the creation and assignment of new holdings. The apportionment might be calculated on the basis of proportionate area allotted, but such a proportion is notional rather than actual, and moreover, such calculations would add to the work of the staff.
It should be realised that in the endeavour to expedite to the fulleset possible extent the work of land division, the staff available for the recording of statistics has been kept at the absolute minimum, and the effort has been to concentrate on the essential statistics and disregard more detailed matters. It is proposed in the current year to elaborate the Land Commission statistics so as to include as much information as possible in regard to the classification of new holdings and the cost of their creation and equipment. No information which was readily available has at any time been withheld from Deputies but, of course, the Department must take into consideration the time and labour involved in compiling detailed particulars not contained in normal statistical returns. Now, I hope, that will satisfy the House. With regard to the research that would be necessary to go over all the schemes for past years, I do not think it would be a practicable proposition. I can only say that, from the 1st April, the statistics will be carried out in detail as far as it is humanly possible to do it.
Now, coming to the matters that were discussed, I would like to refer for a moment or two to the remarks of Deputy Bennett who made the suggestion, which was endorsed by certain Deputies here, that the Land Commission should go out and purchase land in the open market. I think, on the face of it, that does not seem to be either reasonable or wise. We all know what would happen after the first few actions had been held, and when it was realised that the State was bidding for land. What would happen? We would have false prices: we would have what are called down here, I believe, "puffers," and what are called in the North "auction-sweeteners." The proposal to me seems neither practicable nor wise. I was more concerned with the Deputy's references to the houses that are being built by the Land Commission and the criticism which he offered to the type of house that we are building. I agree, if we could afford it, that it would be better to build artistic houses or, at least, more artistic houses than we are building, but I have not yet heard any serious complaint with regard to the method of building, the quality of the building or the quality of the materials that are being used. Personally, if I had my way I would like to see a certain percentage of the Land Commission houses built on the old model with thatched roofs and, of course, properly protected from the point of view of the ceiling and the rest. Unfortunately, we cannot afford these. They would be somewhat of a luxury, but it would be desirable, if we were thinking of the aesthetic qualities of the country, that that should be done.
Deputy Bennett and others raised the question of land prices which I have already dealt with. Deputy Donnelly raised the question of the Luggacurran area, and it was interesting in that connection to get the Fianna Fáil reaction to the Land Commission's work. We remember what Deputy Donnelly said. He suggested something on the Chicago model. I will pass that by. We are, however, doing something with regard to Luggacurran. It is a peculiar district, linked up as it is with the Wolfhill colliery area. The land there is of a mixed quality. We have acquired and schemed 288 acres this year. Schemes are being prepared for an additional 260 acres, and there is at present under review 740 acres.
