Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 4 Feb 1937

Vol. 65 No. 2

In Committee on Finance. Supplementary Estimates. - Vote 54—Lands.

Minister for Lands (Mr. Boland)

I move:—

Go ndeontar suim Bhreise ná reghaidh thar £32,442 chun íoctha an Mhuirir a thiocfaidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh lá de Mhárta, 1937, chun Tuarastail agus Costaisí Oifig an Aire Tailte agus Oifig Choimisiún Talmhan na hEireann (44 agus 45 Vict., c. 49, a. 46, agus c. 71, a. 4; 48 agus 49 Vict., c. 73, a. 17, 18 agus 20; 53 agus 54 Vict., c. 49, a. 2; 54 agus 55 Vict., c. 48; 3 Edw. 7, c. 37; 7 Edw. 7, c. 38 agus c. 56; 9 Edw. 7, c. 42; Uimh. 27 agus Uimh. 42 de 1923; Uimh. 25 de 1925; Uimh. 11 de 1926; Uimh. 19 de 1927; Uimh. 31 de 1929; Uimh. 11 de 1931; Uimh. 33 agus Uimh. 38 de 1933; Uimh. 11 de 1934; agus Uimh. 41 de 1936.

That a Supplementary sum not exceeding £32,442 be granted to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1937, 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; 11 of 1934; and 41 of 1936).

The additional sum of £380 required under sub-head C—Incidental Expenses —is due to the increase in expenditure on advertising in connection with tenders for contracts for the carrying out of improvement works. Owing to the increasing rate of division of untenanted land during the past few years, new holdings are being created in larger numbers, with a consequent increase in the volume of improvement works to be carried out. The rate of expenditure on improvements for the current year has exceeded original anticipations. Outlay for the nine months to the 31st December, 1936, amounted to £486,500 and it is expected that expenditure at a corresponding rate will continue to the end of the financial year. Provision for a further £40,000 is, accordingly, made under sub-head I—Improvement of Estates, etc.—making the total provision for the year under this sub-head, £646,500.

Sub-head T (1) provides a sum of £1,500 to meet the deficiency in consequence of the 50 per cent. reduction under the Land Act, 1933, in the sums collectable from tenants as payment in lieu of rent. Under the Land Act, 1923, the Land Commission are liable to the landlords for the full amount due to them in respect of payment in lieu of rent. Of the present provision, £714 is required to make good the deficiency relating to the period from the May gale, 1933, to the end of the financial year 1935-36 and the balance, £786, to meet the deficiency in the current year. The new sub-head Z— Losses—was opened in order to provide for payment of compensation—£61, including costs—to the owner of a private motor car damaged in collision with a cart driven by an employee of the Land Commission and for payment of £1 to an officer of the Land Commission to compensate for damage to clothing.

Under the new sub-head A.A., provision is made for the payment of lodgment fees in connection with warrants lodged with under-sheriffs for the recovery of arrears of land purchase annuities, etc. Provision for this service was made in previous Estimates but it did not appear in the Estimates for the current year in consequence of a judgment of the High Court, Halpin v. The Attorney-General. The doubts raised by that judgment were removed by Section 17 of the Land Act, 1936, and the provision is, accordingly, restored to the Vote. The amount required for the current year is £23,000. Recovery of the fees will, where possible, be effected by under-sheriffs, and it is expected that £5,000 will be recovered by the end of the financial year for Appropriations-in-Aid of the Vote. The fees paid to county registrars, where they discharge the duties of under-sheriffs, are surrenderable to the Exchequer. The gross amount of the Supplementary Estimate —£64,942—is offset by savings on other sub-heads and by an increase in the amount available for Appropriations-in-Aid of the Vote, leaving the total net sum required £32,442. The main savings occur under sub-head A— Salaries, Wages and Allowances— £4,136; sub-head J—Advance to meet deficiency of Income from Untenanted Lands—£7,000; sub-head R—Payments under Section 27 (2) of the Land Act, 1933—£6,000; sub-head S—Amount required to complete Purchase Proceedings pending under Land Acts, 1903-1909, £5,000. Smaller savings elsewhere in the Vote amount to £5,364.

Mr. Dillon

Only one sub-head of this Vote interests me and that is the sub-head in connection with improvements. I say perfectly frankly that I am appalled at the situation that is developing in connection with the Land Commission and I am sorry to say that I expect that the Minister representing that Department here will be vexed before this debate is over.

Mr. Boland

Do not make promises.

Mr. Dillon

I allege against the Minister now that, instead of distributing land for the primary purpose of carrying out a great social operation, land has been distributed in this country to create the public impression that there is more work being done in land division at present than was ever done before. The result of that is that estates are not being improved in accordance with the sound, old Land Commission practice that used to obtain. In the old days, when an estate or holding was acquired for sub-division, the Land Commission inspectors went down and if they found that part of that land was run-down or boggy or swampy, they deemed it their duty to put every acre of it in the best condition in which it could reasonably be put before they divided it and allotted it to tenants. The general theory was that, when you got a holding from the Land Commission, all the arable land on that holding was fit for cultivation forthwith and was in a proper condition to maintain the family put in there. I say that families are being put into holding now by the Land Commission and the condition in which the land is being handed over to the tenants is a public disgrace. The only result of that is going to be that you are going to break the incoming tenants, because in very few cases have incoming tenants the capital to reclaim land that requires drainage and improvement that ought to have been done by the Land Commission and for which this House votes money. It might be well for Deputies to remember that this House has differentiated between the purchase price of the land and improvements. The Exchequer pays for the improvements and the tenant pays for the land. If you put the tenant in on the land without having these improvements done, he will be broken.

There is a second aspect of the situation to which I invite the attention of the Minister. At first glance he will think that I am being acutely contentious, but he may live to learn that what I am saying is true. In the old days, when the Land Commission prepared a scheme for distribution of a given piece of land, they regarded it as their duty to ensure that every person given a piece of land was a fit and proper person to get such land—that is to say, that he was an industrious type of man, that he had some little capital of his own, or he had family connections who would help him in the initial stages of getting going in the new holding. The Commissioners were prepared to stand at his elbow and give him a hand during the first three or four years, but they always wanted to know before they gave a man a holding that he was the kind of person who might reasonably be expected to make a success of it. I allege that that criterion of excellence has been completely abandoned, and that anybody who puts up to get land now gets it. In addition to vexing the Minister, I may vex some of my own colleagues, because—the Minister probably does not expect me to say this— I have investigated most of the complaints made to me about the distribution of land, and I generally found that, taking all things into consideration, no reasonable man could find any political discrimination in the distribution of land by the Irish Land Commission.

Mr. Boland

You found out that, anyhow.

Mr. Dillon

I am always prepared to admit that while I found that Fianna Fáil complained that it was Blue-shirts were getting the land, when the position was examined closely there was a pretty fair average assortment all round and it could not be alleged that there was favour towards one side or the other. If one place got a surplus of supporters of the local cumann, it was found that in other places quite a surprising number of supporters of Fine Gael were put in. After five years we have come to the conclusion that there is very little political discrimination shown by the Land Commission. That is, as far as I can make out. There is one thing I cannot understand, however. I could understand if all the unsuitable tenants were being put in by Fianna Fáil, then I would say that it was clear the Minister was putting in every rag, tag and bobtail prepared to go and shout for him. I could understand foursquare political corruption and jobbery, and I could understand jobbery. I think the Minister could understand jobbery also.

Mr. Boland

I have not got the name that Deputy Dillon has in that respect. He ought to know all about it.

Mr. Dillon

I do not know anything about our respective traditions.

Mr. Boland

I will bow to the Deputy there.

Mr. Dillon

I do not think it would be desirable that we should start to compare our respective traditions. Let us confine ourselves to this question. I think the Minister is as good a judge and as good at his job as the next, and I would expect to find a pretty good job done in that regard. I do not allege that against the Minister in connection with land. I do not think it has been done, is being done now or was done by his predecessors. What I do allege is a far graver responsibility, that in order to create a general impression of a great achievement the Land Commission has been driven to divide land at such a rate that makes matters impossible for the staff, if it is to be done in an efficient way, with the result that the land has not been improved or the tenants properly chosen. I say that if the Minister looks into land that was divided in his own constituency in the course of a couple of years, he will find, at least on one estate, that more than half the land has been already set by the tenants to shopkeepers in a neighbouring town.

In the very same neighbourhood, if he will go and inspect another estate, I think he will agree with me that a good deal of the land was quite unfit to be put into the hands of tenants on small holdings, because the expense of renovating it is such as will make it impossible for them to carry on. I deliberately refrained from naming the estate but, with the Minister's permission, I will send the name to him. I do not think it is fair to drag individual names up in this House unless there is authority to do so. I will send the Minister the name of the estate, as he knows it as well as I do. I think that is an illustration of the evil that I allege, and I should be glad if other Deputies gave their experience, and compared the condition of land handed over to incoming tenants now with the condition of that land seven years ago. I ask Deputies also to tell their experience of the average tenant put on divided estates now with the average tenant put on similar estates seven or eight years ago. I believe they will confirm what I am saying, that the land has not been adequately improved, and that sufficient discrimination was not made in the choice of persons getting holdings. That lack of discrimination is the failure on the part of the Land Commission to satisfy itself that the incoming tenants are persons who have a reasonable chance of making a success of the holdings they have been given.

Mr. Goulding

My experience of the division of land in my constituency does not agree with that of Deputy Dillon. As a matter of fact I found that the Land Commission are sometimes a bit too careful as to what land they will acquire for division. I was interested in some land, as I wanted it divided, and I was informed that the Land Commission did not consider it suitable or good enough for division. I found that the inspectors were very careful about the people to whom they would give land and when making inquiries regarding suitable applicants, they endeavoured to find out if they had practical experience of the working of land. They always insisted on that qualification. One of the first questions they ask is whether an applicant has had practical experience of working land. Very often an agricultural labourer has more experience in that way than people who are better off in the world.

Mr. Dillon

Hear, hear!

Mr. Goulding

Not alone are men needed with a practical knowledge of the working of land, but they also need some backing and, to my mind, the best classes of persons to whom to give land are the sons of small farmers. If possible, give land to people as close as possible to their friends, because very often they are not in a position to purchase the necessary farm implements and horses with which to work the land, and if land allotted to such people is situate anyway near their own friends, they get a good deal of work done free and they get a loan of horses. The Land Commission are very anxious to ascertain if applicants for land come within that category. It must be recognised that there is an insistent demand all over the country for the division of land, and I am sure every Deputy is annoyed by people in his constituency worrying him to get after the Land Commission about land. It is quite possible that as a result, the Land Commission have to do what Deputy Dillon stated, to divide land that is not very suitable for division. My complaint, and I am sure it is that of other Deputies, is that the Land Commission are not going fast enough. I had a letter from a constituent this morning bewailing the fact that only 270 acres had been divided in County Waterford last year. My particular complaint is that people write to me stating that they have offered land to the Land Commission for the past three or four years, that they got the usual reply, and heard no more about it. I also get complaints from people who are looking for land, intimating that owners have offered land to the Land Commission, and as the people in the district are anxious to get it, they want to know when it will be taken and given to them. Between all, it is very hard to know what to do.

We are endeavouring to get the Land Commission to take over farms and divide them, and we endeavour to recommend suitable tenants. A farm in my neighbourhood was offered to the Land Commission two years ago. It was land that was eminently suitable for division, being a national holding which would be free of rent in a few years, and lately it has been taken over by a private purchaser. We are up against this position, that there is the energetic go-ahead man who wants more land, a successful butcher, perhaps, who wants accommodation land to produce the raw material for his business at first cost. The natural desire of such a man is to acquire more land, while, on the other hand, we are met with groups of people who ask: "Why allow such a man to buy land? He is wealthy and can afford to pay an uneconomic price. We cannot do that; we want the land and would be able to work it. Why do you not get it for us?" This matter is becoming dangerous For instance, in my county lately, there was a recurrence of cattle driving, and cattle which were put on an estate were driven and scattered all over the country. That is just an instance of what might happen if land division is not speeded up.

An Ceann Comhairle

In the Vote before us, I find no request for moneys for the purchase of land. The Deputy is fully aware of the fact that it is not permissible on a Supplementary Estimate to discuss general policy. He has strayed far from the improvement of estates in talking of land agitation in County Waterford. The debate may not be widened in that manner.

Mr. Goulding

I quite agree. I started by following Deputy Dillon on the improvement of land, and naturally I wandered on to the other.

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy Dillon was quite in order in discussing the improvement of estates, as £40,000 is asked for that purpose.

Mr. Goulding

The difficulty of confining myself to the subject matter is rather troublesome sometimes. I quite agree that it would be desirable that the Land Commission should put land into the very best possible condition before dividing it, but it is not very easy, because there is such an insistent demand for the division of land that if the Land Commission were to follow counsels of perfection and put the land in the very best possible order, it would be very long before the claims of those calling for the division of land would be met.

Mr. Everett

I want to draw the Minister's attention to one matter in connection with the division of land in County Wicklow. We are not as fortunate as other counties in having any of our estates divided, and the only appeal I want to make briefly to the Minister is in respect of land convenient to villages or areas with a population of several hundreds. The action of the Land Commission some years ago in connection with what were called cow-parks was found to be a great convenience. It is a great convenience for a man who may not be successful in getting nine or ten acres of land to get a portion of land for the grazing of his cows.

An Ceann Comhairle

Could the Deputy enlighten the Chair as to what sub-section of this Vote he is dealing with?

Mr. Everett

I think it would be a matter of the administration of the Land Commission.

An Ceann Comhairle

Which is not in the Estimate.

Mr. Everett

I merely wish to suggest that the Minister should bear in mind that idea of cow-parks in connection with the division of land.

Mr. Roddy

It has always been customary about this time of the year to introduce a Supplementary Estimate for the purposes of the Land Commission, but this Supplementary Estimate, taken in conjunction with the increase in the improvements sub-head of the Vote for the financial year 1936-37 as compared with 1935-36, shows an increase of approximately £100,000; in other words, at the end of this financial year the Land Commission will have spent approximately £100,000 more than in 1935-36 on the improvement of estates. Now, £100,000, even in these days of high spending, is an enormous lot of money, and I think the total Estimate for the improvement of estates now amounts to £650,000. Even admitting for the moment that the Minister has succeeded during the last two or three years in speeding up land distribution enormously, and in dividing double and treble as many acres as were divided in the days when his predecessors were in office, the amount of money spent on the improvement of estates at present still represents about six times, or at least five times, as much as the amount spent during the time the previous Government were in office.

When the main Estimate was being discussed last year, I asked the Minister if he were satisfied that all this huge expenditure was justified and that the Land Commission and the State were getting full value for all the money spent. I have no doubt that in a year like this, when the Government propose holding a general election, they would be inclined to be more generous than usual in the expenditure of money on works such as are provided for under this subhead of the Vote, but, nevertheless, I still hold that the expenditure of £650,000 on the improvement of 100,000 acres of land does not, to my mind at least, represent adequate value, either to the State or to the Land Commission. However, as I say, I raised this question when the main Estimate was being discussed last year, and I invited the Minister to say something on that point, but so far as I can recollect he steered clear of it altogether when replying. In any event, when money is spent on the improvement of an estate or a holding, it is only right that the person for whom that holding is intended should get the full value of it, and I submit that in very many cases throughout the Free State at the moment the allottee is not getting the value of these improvements, and that in many cases, because of the types of allottee selected, the original owner of the land or some shopkeeper in a neighbouring town is getting the benefit of the taxpayers' money which the Land Commission spent on the improvement of the holdings.

It is only right, I admit, that landless men and men living in labourers' cottages should be considered for land when it is being divided, but it is also the duty of the Land Commission to see that that man has either the means to work that holding when he gets it, or, if he has not got the means, that some provision should be made whereby he will be enabled to work it. The Minister must know as well as I know that at the present moment in many parts of this country land is being divided and the allottees who are getting that land proceed immediately to sublet it, either to the original owner or to some shopkeeper or trader in the neighbouring town. I submit that it is not fair either to the Land Commission or to the State that that state of affairs should exist, or, if it does exist, that it should be allowed to continue. The Land Commission should see that the person on whose behalf money is spent on the improvement of a holding is the person who will benefit by the expenditure of that money.

In connection with that matter, I want to complain of the delay in some cases which takes place before the necessary works of improvement are started. I know very many instances where estates were improved at least three or four years ago. I know one particular estate where a scheme of improvements was drawn up about four years ago, and the tenants who benefited by the provision of this estate were told that they were to get grants for the erection of new houses or the improvement of existing houses. In a few cases, the tenants have got those grants, but in the majority of cases they have not got them yet. That is only one instance. I could give half-a-dozen other instances, but I am not going to weary the House with that point. I submit to the Minister that there is very often quite unnecessary delay in making available grants especially for the improvements of houses for tenants on estates divided by the Land Commission.

The only one other point I wish to make is with reference to Section 17 of the Land Act of 1936. The Minister read the particular paragraph relating to this particular sub-head so fast that I could not follow him quite clearly.

Mr. Boland

I am very sorry.

Mr. Roddy

In any event, there is a sum of £23,000 provided in this Estimate for the payment of the necessary fees under that section. It is the section relating to the collection of Land Commission annuities by means of warrants issued to the county registrars or sheriffs. The Land Commission, in the first instance, must pay those fees to the county registrars or to the sheriffs. Then the county registrar or the sheriff proceeds to collect those fees afterwards from the unfortunate tenants who are in arrears with payment of Land Commission annuities. When you consider that this Act has been in operation only for a short time, the sum of £23,000 appears to be rather an abnormal amount for that particular purpose. I should like to get from the Minister some statement with regard to the manner in which this particular section of the Act is working out. What loss does he estimate will be incurred because of the operation of this particular section by the end of the financial year? I should also like to know what is the cost of operating this particular section for one whole financial year.

It appears to me that under this section, notwithstanding the enthusiasm with which it was received by the members of the Fianna Fáil Party when it was first introduced as a Land Act in 1933 and subsequently amended and strengthened by a section in the Land Act, 1936, the State will have to pay the piper for the privilege of getting the county registrars and sheriffs to collect annuities from unfortunate defaulters. The position is then, in my view at all events, that the loss will be exceptionally heavy, and that as long as this particular section remains in operation the State will continue year after year to lose ever increasing sums of money. Under the old arrangement—I am speaking from recollection—the loss was trifling in the course of the whole financial year. This is only a provisional Estimate and it is intended to cover a very short period; yet we find that the State has to foot a bill of £23,000 for the purpose of making good the fees and expenses to which sheriffs and county registrars are entitled under that particular section of the Act.

There is just one other point to which I wish to refer. Under the Act of 1931 provision was made for the purpose of carrying out certain necessary improvements to holdings before they were finally vested in the tenants. Does this sum of £650,000, which the Land Commission is spending or will spend by the end of this financial year, include any money for that particular object? I think I asked that question before when the Land Commission Estimate was being discussed, but I have no recollection of getting a reply, and I would be interested to know what amount has been set aside for that particular purpose.

I want to reiterate what Deputy Dillon has said in regard to Land Commission officials. So far as I know the Land Commission officials—and I am fairly intimately acquainted with their work—they certainly carry out their duties in a very fair and very scrupulous manner. So far as the division of land is concerned, there is no doubt that they do to the very best of their ability try to select the right person. If the right person is not selected, and if the State is losing money because of the manner in which the Land Acts are being administered, the fault does not lie either with the Minister or with his higher officials in the Land Commission.

Mr. Keyes

I should just like to make one point on this Estimate, and that is to draw the Minister's attention to the rather unaccountable slowing up in the operation of the machinery of the Land Commission in the last 12 or 18 months. Speaking for the County Limerick, which I am representing, we had a very welcome speed up——

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy is well aware that there is no money for the division of land in this Estimate; it is for the improvement of estates. Two Deputies have already been debarred from pursuing that line.

Mr. Corry

I wish to object to the passing of this additional £40,000 required for the improvements of estates. I object to it because I think it is enough for the people of my constituency to be paying £606,000 already, without having an additional £40,000 tacked on to them, when they are getting no benefit. Not an acre of land was divided in my constituency.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy may not go into the division of land.

Mr. Corry

I am objecting to the passing of this money which is to be used in the improvement of estates taken over for division. My objection to it is that no land has been divided in my constituency, and on behalf of my constituents I object to the spending of this money.

Mr. Curran

That is bad before an election.

Mr. Corry

I object to the spending, in other parts of the country, of this money which my constituents have to pay. I think there should be a fair distribution of this money. If £646,000 collected from the taxpayers is to be spent, part of it should come into every constituency, and at least a few of the hundreds of estates I have referred to during the last seven years should be divided up.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy may not discuss the division of land.

Mr. Corry

Very well, a Chinn Comhairle. I shall refer to the improvement of estates, and the manner in which they are to be improved. I am glad Deputy Roddy has mentioned that and gone into it fairly fully, but I should like to call attention to the manner in which the Mount Uniacke estate was improved. There was a large mansion down there——

Mr. Boland

I would ask what year the Deputy is referring to, because I think we are dealing only with the current year. I cannot go into ancient history.

Mr. Corry

I should like to point out that Deputy Roddy dealt with improvements carried out four years ago, and I think there should be no objection to my dealing with improvements made a few years ago also. The position was that there were 16 stone steps leading up to this mansion, and those 16 stone steps were taken away to fill a gap in a wall in an old barn close beside it.

An Ceann Comhairle

We are discussing an Estimate for which the Minister for Lands, who introduced the Vote, is responsible. If the case mentioned by the Deputy did not arise within the current financial year he may not discuss it further. We are not discussing past administration.

Mr. Corry

What I was going to suggest to the Minister was that— seeing that the only method this poor man now has of getting into this house is by means of a ladder—if the stone steps were removed as one improvement some of this £40,000 might be profitably spent on supplying him with some means of getting into his house now. There is also another case to which I should like for a moment to direct the attention of the Minister. It is that of a man named Patrick Fitzgerald, Harpurs Island, Glounthaune, in the Keane Estate. That estate is not yet vested. The place is practically an island.

An Ceann Comhairle

Would the Deputy inform the Chair how the Improvements Vote will affect the estate there?

Mr. Corry

Certainly. If it does not affect that it affects nothing. Surely to Heavens the preservation of that man's farm would be an improvement. The estate is not yet vested; therefore, it comes under this heading. The position there is that the land is completely surrounded by water, and when the tide comes in it bursts down the barriers that were put up there. This man wrote to the Land Commission last year asking if they would spend some money to prevent the tide wiping out his farm altogether. The Land Commission replied that that was his business. That is what they told him. This country has been left with white elephants enough without the Land Commission leaving it some more. If the purchase money of that estate is going to be handed over to that landlord without a proper deduction being made for the upkeep of the bank, well then I hold that whatever officer in the Land Commission is responsible should be tried right away.

Mr. Boland

Better try me first.

Mr. Corry

I am certainly sure that the Minister takes a lot on his shoulders but I know he would not take the responsibility for that.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Minister takes responsibility for the work done by his officials.

Mr. Corry

Very well, Sir. The trouble is that this land was acquired by compulsory purchase. The man was compelled to buy under the 1923 Act whether he liked it or not. The State, who advanced the money, are responsible to the taxpayer for the preservation of their interests. In this particular case the embankments are being broken down every day, the is continually coming in and if it succeeds in coming in as it has been doing, the whole farm will in time be wiped out. I suggest to the Minister that the money should be held back from the landlord so as to insure that those embankments are kept in proper condition. We have cases cropping up where the landlord having got his money has gone off and nobody is responsible for the maintenance of these embankments.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy is now discussing administration by the Land Commission.

Mr. Corry

I am pointing out to the Minister that in this particular case it is his bounden duty. I hope to be here next year and the year after——

Mr. Donnelly

There are grave doubts about that.

Mr. Corry

If the tide comes in and wipes out this land I do not want anyone to say that I was responsible through my negligence. It is time that the Minister took that matter in hand. This £646,000 is apparently being spent everywhere else except in East Cork, where there has been no division of lands.

Mr. J.P. Kelly

I am surprised that there should be any criticism or opposition to this Vote. As I understand the matter, this will enable the Land Commission to spend £100,000 more on improvements of estates this year than they did last year. That has been criticised from the point of view of the value obtained by the Land Commission for the money expended. Opposition Deputies criticised the spending of the full amount of £646,550 on the improvement of hundreds of thousands of acres of land. I hold that good value has been obtained for this money. My only complaint is that sufficient money has not been allocated to carry out the full improvement schemes that we would like to see put into operation.

I think nobody will argue that the wages paid to the workmen employed on these improvements were too high. Neither can the argument be used that the houses erected were too good for the incoming tenants. I think it is quite obvious to all that the road-making and the fencing carried out has not been extravagant. The roads leading to the new houses were necessary and only very necessary fencing was carried out. We would like to see still further repairs to these roads and still further money made available for the improvements. I hold that only very necessary drainage has been carried out on these farms that were given to the incoming tenants. For these reasons I do not see why there should be any criticism or any opposition to the passing of this Vote. It has been argued that the Land Commission is merely expending the money in making improvements not exactly for the incoming tenants but for the late owner or local shopkeeper who will take the land upon the eleven-months system. Now, generally speaking, in the County Meath we have not met with much of this abuse. If it exists in other counties it certainly does not to any large extent exist in Meath. It did exist seven or eight years ago, and for this reason—that no houses were erected for the incoming tenants and no roads were made into their farms. Consequently as they were living far away they were compelled to let the lands on the eleven-months system. That is not so now. The Land Commission is doing what is necessary to enable the incoming tenant to make full use of his land. That is what the estate improvements in Meath do. Where these improvements have been carried out within the past couple of years we have no complaints to make. The only thing that so far has been overlooked in my county is that no provision has been made for the erection of corn lofts where stables have been erected. Where out-offices have been erected we advocate the erection of corn lofts. That is because when the new tillage policy comes into operation as a result of the division of these lands there will be a call for such facilities by the tenants so that they may be able to store the corn they grow.

Mr. McMenamin

I could not hear what the Minister said in connection with sub-head AA.

Mr. Boland

If the Deputy wishes I will again repeat what I said.

Mr. McMenamin

I only want to know the period that is involved. Is it the period since the passing of the Land Act of 1933? Does this £23,000 represent money exclusively due to the sheriffs for costs involved down the country?

I should like if for the period under review the Minister could give me the aggregate amount of sheriffs' costs in connection with the issue of warrants from their offices. A lot was said on this Vote that, in my opinion, is very much beside the question. A lot that is said both inside and outside this House had, in my opinion, been better left unsaid. Deputy Goulding talked about cattle driving which had no relation whatever to this Vote. I think Deputies should examine their consciences as regards what they said in the past about cattle driving. I am glad to say that in the constituency that I represent we never had any trouble of that kind. Public men should have some sense of responsibility, and should not talk about cattle driving.

As regards the division and improvement of estates, I do want to say in a most unqualified manner that the inspectors of the Land Commission who have been engaged on the work of the division of land over the last 25 years have been absolutely fair and efficient, and, in the main, remarkably shrewd in the selection of the tenants for the holdings. We have this ramp about the division of land. In the first place, you cannot divide land overnight, and in the second place we have not so much land to divide.

An Ceann Comhairle

And in the third place, it is not in this Vote.

Mr. McMenamin

I agree. If you rush the work of the improvement of estates in pursuance of a public clamour, then the cost is going to be excessive. If a man experienced in that work has to be taken from some other employment and put in it he is going to demand higher wages. Deputy Roddy was justified in saying that an economic value has not been got by the Government or the State for the amount of money spent on these improvement schemes. One reason for that is that the inspectors engaged on it have been driven off their feet. They have not been given sufficient time to do the ordinary work that falls to be done when the exchange of land takes place. They have not the time to do the work in the way that it should be done, and that is largely because of this ramp for the division of land.

When the Land Act of 1933 was going through I said I thought the process of the collection of land annuities was very efficient. Exception was taken to the cost. I urged on the Minister that, if the costs were thought to be excessive, the scales should be reviewed and reduced. The reason I gave for that was this, that, generally, the State solicitor lived in about the centre of a county. He travelled over the county attending the district courts. Tenant purchasers in arrears could arrange to meet him at the district courts, and either ask him to stay his hand or take portion of the amount due in order to avoid an increase in the costs. In the main, I found that that system worked out very well. I would say to the Minister that, if he thinks the present system is calculated to inflict extravagant costs on tenant purchasers, he should revert to the old practice. So far as my experience goes, I found that State solicitors were very human in dealing with tenant purchasers in these matters. The sheriff is more of an official. His machinery is more rigid than that of the State solicitor's. It is more cast-iron, and he will not be as sympathetic in dealing with tenant purchasers as solicitors who have dealings with the people almost every day. The sheriff is operating a cast-iron machine in his office, and he has no mercy. He sends out the bailiffs, costs are piled up, and these fall on the tenant purchasers. I would, therefore, say to the Minister that, if he thinks that the tendency under the present system is to place an excessive burden on tenant purchasers, he should revert to the old practice which I think worked very well.

So far as the sub-division of land in the County Donegal is concerned, I congratulate the higher officials and the inspectors responsible for doing that work. They do their work efficiently and well, and I think it is due that a tribute should be paid to them. Politicians should have nothing to do with the division of land, but, unfortunately, politics comes into almost everything in this country. This is a work which should be left to an impartial body of men. Speaking for myself, I should prefer to be defeated a thousand times rather than appeal to political passions in order to get votes over a matter of this kind. I congratulate the officials on the manner in which they have done their work in the County Donegal.

Mr. Donnelly

I confess that I have heard many strange things said in this House, but I thought I would never see a Deputy get up here and mention such a thing as a soft-hearted solicitor. Deputy McMenamin has made an appeal to the Minister to put back into the hands of solicitors various jobs which involve persecuting and harassing tenants, and in doing that he condemned sheriffs for the manner in which they do their work. He described them as rigid and cast-iron. I do not think I have ever heard solicitors described as anything but cast-iron until I listened to Deputy McMenamin this evening.

Mr. P. Daly

Unlike Deputy Corry, I find myself in agreement with Deputy McMenamin on this Vote. I have nothing but praise for the inspectors of the Land Commission as regards the manner in which they do the work relating to the improvement and division of estates. I was surprised to hear Deputy Corry say that there had been no estates divided in his constituency. I know at least five that were divided.

An Ceann Comhairle

I am afraid that the Cork representatives will have to settle this matter outside the House since there is no provision in this Vote for division of estates.

Mr. Daly

With regard to the improvement of estates, I hope that portion of this money will be earmarked for some estates in my constituency which, I hope, will be divided in the very near future. It was stated here to-night that some of the lands already divided were given to unsuitable tenants and that those lands now held by the tenants were sublet by them to shopkeepers in towns and villages. I agree that that has occurred in some places, but I do not think it would be advisable for the Minister or for the Land Commission to take that into account when they would be dividing lands.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy was in the House when Deputy Keyes and two others were precluded from dealing with land division. The Deputy may not pursue that subject. There is no provision in this Estimate for the division of lands.

Mr. P. Daly

But it was stated, Sir, that men who were allotted land formerly were now letting that land to shopkeepers and others and, if I am not out of order, Sir, I hold that in future divisions that should not be taken into account against men looking for portions of estates, because, while I agree that the most suitable tenant would be a man who would have a certain amount of capital, you may have just as suitable a man, or even a more suitable man, who may not have any capital.

An Ceann Comhairle

I think the Deputy may not pursue that line. The fact that one Deputy rambled does not entitle all others to follow him through the gap.

Mr. P. Daly

Well, Sir, there is just one more point. I notice sub-head AA.—Fees Payable in connection with Proceedings under Section 28 of the Land Act, 1933, £23,000. I should like to inform the Minister that a good many tenants in my constituency, instead of getting their receivable orders in the ordinary way through the Land Commission for their half-yearly annuity, receive a warrant from the sheriff, with costs of something like 7/- or 8/- on each warrant. I think that is very unfair on these men, many of whom have come to me and complained about it. They say that it is very unjust and that they should get their receivable orders from the Land Commission as they always got them. They say that it is not fair to ask them to pay 7/- or 8/- for a warrant to the sheriff, and I hope the Minister will see that that will be rectified. They get no receivable order from the Land Commission, Sir, but they get a warrant from the sheriff for only a half-year's annuity. I hope that the Minister and the Land Commission will see that that state of affairs will be made right. In conclusion, Sir, I have nothing but praise for the inspector and officers of the Land Commission in the performance of their duties.

Mr. T. Murphy

Before the Minister concludes, Sir, I should like to make a plea for a resumption of work by the Land Commission in the improvement of estates in West Cork. Some years ago very useful and valuable work was done in this direction, and I may say in that connection that it was very efficiently carried out by the officers of the Land Commission and by the subordinates to whom their powers were delegated. However, since the advent of minor relief schemes and under the régime under which these minor relief schemes now operate, the change has been marked by and almost complete cessation of Land Commission work throughout West Cork. Hence it is that one very frequently hears of complaints by tenants on estates not vested, as to inroads by way of coastal erosion that has deprived them of numbers of acres of land, and complaints of the absence of other facilities that would be a very valuable improvement to the estates in question. I urge the Minister strongly to see that some portion of the money devoted to the improvement of estates is allocated for work in the area to which I have referred, which, by reason of its uneconomic nature, is certainly extremely deserving in the matter of the apportionment of public moneys and which, I think, can lay claim to many useful avenues for expenditure of that money through the improvement of the estates.

I notice with pleasure that quite recently a substantial estate has been acquired by the Land Commission in the estate formerly held by Lord Carbery in West Cork, and I suggest that the officials of the Land Commission will find a very valuable opportunity of doing substantial improvement work, and I hope it will be undertaken at a very early date. My knowledge of the Land Commission officials' work in regard to the improvement of estates has been a very happy one indeed, and one in which I can, without any reserve, pay a tribute to the efficiency of their work, and, I may say also, their sense of impartiality.

With reference to the complaint that Deputy Daly has made in regard to the issue of documents in connection with the collection of annuities, I may say that in that particular branch of the Land Commission—I do not know, Sir, if it is strictly correct to refer to the matter, but I am only making a passing reference to it—I have always found the same consideration extended to the tenant purchasers and I have never at any time noticed any evidence of any desire or any tendency to harass them unduly. I think it is right that it should be said that, in the matter of the difficulties of the average tenant purchaser, and in the consideration of any representations that have to be made on their behalf, such representations are always sympathetically considered. I urge on the Minister that the whole work of improvements in West Cork should not be left entirely to the operation of the minor relief schemes, because these minor relief schemes are often governed by questions such as the degree of unemployment prevalent in a district and perhaps not always by the value of a particular scheme that could be undertaken equally well, and perhaps, in some cases, better, through the agency of the Land Commission, for the improvement of estates. There is a tendency at the present time to transmit, from the Land Commission offices to the Office of Public Works, proposals of this kind, and I earnestly urge the Minister that in any further schemes for the improvement of estates the work that is well and capably carried out in the constituency I represent might be resumed on some kind of reasonable scale through the agency of the Minister and his Department, the Land Commission.

Mr. Victory

Whilst I am rising, Sir, to support the motion for the payment of this money, I must take this opportunity of drawing the Minister's attention to the very little activity there has been in County Longford for the past 12 months. If I were to sit quietly here and to let this Vote pass without making some protest about the inactivity in County Longford, I would certainly have to meet some criticisms when I got back. There are cases of estates being taken over there three years ago, and houses were to be built on them two years ago, and they are not finished yet. Several ranches were inspected and yet not seven yards of them have been divided. I should like to draw the Minister's attention to the fact that there is a growing feeling in County Longford that they are being neglected there.

An Ceann Comhairle

That is in the matter of improvements?

Mr. Victory

Yes, Sir. I am trying to get around to it.

Mr. G. Boland

Of course, they cannot improve the land until it is divided.

Mr. Dillon

What? You cannot improve the land until it is divided?

Mr. G. Boland

Well, until they have acquired it for division.

Mr. Victory

Well, what about the ones that have been acquired? There were also large areas in which roads were to be made and drained two years ago, and not one thing has been done. I only want to draw the Minister's attention to that. I am supporting the Vote and I would like to help the Land Commission in any way I can, but I should like to see at least some of the plums coming our way.

Mr. Boland

There has been a welcome change in the tone adopted by some Deputies this evening. Not so long ago I heard Deputy Dillon trumpeting forth that the Fianna Fáil cumainn decided who got the land as well as who got the jobs. I am glad to see that he has had the grace to acknowledge, on investigating the position, that he is now satisfied that such is not the case.

Mr. Dillon

On a point of correction, if the Minister will refer to what I said he will find that the protest that I made in this House was against the growing practice of Fianna Fáil clubs announcing that they were going to acquire certain land. I pointed out that such a practice was extremely undesirable and gave rise to a great deal of disquiet and alarm in the country. I was careful to point out that the Land Commission exercised a discretion but that this business of groups of men purporting to be able to deal with the land of some of their neighbours was a disgusting practice. So it was and so it is.

Mr. Corry

And so it will be.

Mr. Boland

At any rate the Deputy has now made the amende honorable. He is now quite satisfied that the Land Commission distribute the land to people they consider most suitable for it, irrespective of the Party to which they belong. Other Deputies have said the same thing. That is a very healthy position to be in. Deputy Dillon also said that he was not satisfied that the Land Commission were getting the right type of people for allotments. That was one of his main points. Another was that the land had been handed over in a bad condition, that it was not fit to be given to any tenant. So far as I can discover from the Land Commission officials there has been no change in either the method of selecting allottees or in the matter of improving estates. The same practice that has always obtained obtains now. In the particular case to which Deputy Dillon referred the land has only recently been handed over. I shall have any case of that kind inquired into and the Land Commission will see what further can be done to improve the land.

It is the practice of the Land Commission to improve the land as far as it can possibly be improved before it is handed over. I am advised that the people to whom the land is being given are of just the same type as ever they were. You will, of course, get people who will not make good use of their land no matter how inspectors try to assist them. I would remind the House that if people neglect to use their lands in the way in which they should use them, the Land Commission has power to take the land from them, and they will do so. There is an investigation going on at present. Officers are making inspections of land that has been allotted in recent years and are making reports, and when these reports are considered the question will arise whether some of these allottees should remain in possession of their holdings or not.

Mr. McMenamin

Are you going to evict them?

Mr. Boland

If the land is not worked as it should be worked, it will not be left with them. They will not be left in possession of lands they are neglecting and not working. Of course I have no choice as regards the type of allottees but I can tell Deputy Dillon and the House that the same practice is followed as has always been followed in these matters. As regards the point raised by Deputy Dillon about the particular estate he named, I shall have inquiries made. Other Deputies referred to the question of land division but they were ruled out. If they so desire, they can speak to me privately on the matter. Deputy Roddy complains that there was £100,000 more spent on improvements this year than last year. He also said that the amount spent on improvements was five or six times the amount formerly spent in that way. I take it that the Deputy's point was that we were not getting the same value for the money spent.

Mr. McMenamin

That is the allegation.

Mr. Boland

I think the Deputy will find it very hard to prove that. Of course I have to take the reports I get from the responsible officials, and Deputies will remember that a tribute was paid to them from all sides of the House. I am informed by them that the standard of work is just as high now as at any time. If three times the amount of money that was formerly spent is now being spent, there is three times as much land being divided. Naturally, there will be three times as much expenditure on improvements. Deputy Roddy also asked whether the improvement grant contained any provision for improvements under the 1931 Act. I could not give him that information. He complains that that question when put previously had not been answered. I have not got separate accounts for the improvements carried out under the different Acts, so that I cannot give him that information. Then he speaks of a loss of £23,000 which he says the unfortunate defaulters will have to suffer. That simply refers to the fee which has to be lodged with the warrant. Deputy McMenamin objects to the new system and thinks that the old system was better for the annuitant.

Mr. McMenamin

I did not object to it.

Mr. Boland

He asked me to consider the question of reverting to the old system.

Mr. McMenamin

No.

Mr. Boland

He suggested that there was an undue burden thrown on the unfortunate defaulters by this new system of collection. Of course, that is not accurate at all. I may tell Deputy McMenamin, what I imagine he should have known already as he belongs to the legal profession, that at least the State solicitor's fee and the cost of the civil bill proceedings are saved by the defaulter. In a case where there would be £4 14s. 0d. due, there would be a difference of £1 6s. 0d. as between the new and the old system. The defaulter would have to pay £1 6s. 0d. less under the new system than under the old system.

Mr. McMenamin

What I wanted the Minister to do was to take the gross costs and compare them.

Mr. Boland

After all the gross costs must be made up of all the items. The fact is that in the particular case I have given the costs are less by the amount stated. We have no intention of departing from the present system, and we are quite satisfied that it is a much less expensive system than the old system. Deputy Kelly raised the question of corn lofts. Certain buildings are erected by the Land Commission, but you could not expect them to do everything for these people. We think they have been treated pretty well. Deputy Murphy seems to think that where minor relief schemes are in operation the Land Commission avoids doing any work. It is the other way round. The Land Commission will do the work it has to do, and if the Board of Works finds the Land Commission before them in any area, they will not go into the division where the Land Commission is operating. It is only where the Land Commission are not working, that relief works are being done. Deputy Daly complained that certain defaulters did not get their receivable orders before they got the warrant from the sheriff. The position is that a warrant is never issued against a defaulter who has not got a receivable order as well as a six days' notice. Deputy Corry complained about the maintenance of embankments in cases where the landlords were liable. The position is that where a landlord is liable to maintain an embankment, an application is made to the court for the retention out of the purchase fund of the sum required for the maintenance. If the landlord is not liable, there can be no such retention.

Mr. Corry

The Land Commission make the advance for the purchase of the farm and, if the landlord is allowed to get away with that money without lodging some money for the maintenance of embankments, you will find yourself in the position that this unfortunate man finds himself in now. He has 20 acres around his house, and he has 75 acres when the tide is out. Yet, he has to pay £38 a year to the Land Commission. Before the land is vested is the time to see that the taxpayer's money is safeguarded.

Mr. Boland

I repeat that, if the landlord is liable, that will be done, but, if not, we cannot legally deduct the money from him.

Mr. Corry

You advanced the money.

Mr. Boland

If he is liable to maintain these embankments, an order will be got from the court to deduct from the purchase money the amount necessary for the maintenance of these embankments.

Mr. Corry

Surely some Land Commissioner said it was worth the money.

Mr. Boland

As regards the question concerning East Cork, the Land Commission does not operate by constituencies; it deals with counties, as a rule. In Cork, £6,199 was spent in the present year on improvements. Perhaps that money was not spent in Deputy Corry's part of Cork but I hope he is more than an East Cork man. He will be pleased to know that a fairly substantial sum out of the Improvement Vote was spent in Cork.

Vote put and agreed to.

Votes Nos. 12, 22, 26, 44, 46, 49, 52, 64, 71 and 76 reported and agreed to.