Committee on Finance. - Vote 54—Lands. – Dáil Éireann (10th Dáil) – Wednesday, 26 Apr 1939

Committee on Finance. - Vote 54—Lands.

Minister for Lands (Mr. G. Boland)

I move:

Go ndeontar suim ná raghaidh thar £1,068,638 ehun slánuithe na suime is gá chun íoctha an Mhuirir a thiocfaidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh lá de Mhárta, 1940, 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 sum not exceeding £1,068,638 be granted to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1940, 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, s. 46, and c. 71, s. 4; 48 and 49 Vict., c. 73, ss. 17, 18 and 20; 53 and 54 Vict., c. 49, s. 2; 54 and 55 Vict., c. 48; 3 Edw. 7, c. 37; 7 Edw. 7, c. 38, and c. 56; 9 Edw. 7, c. 42; Nos. 27 and 42 of 1923; 25 of 1925; 11 of 1926; 19 of 1927; 31 of 1929; 11 of 1931; 33 and 38 of 1933; 11 of 1934 and 41 of 1936).

The amount of the Estimate for Lands for the year 1939-40 shows a net increase of £51,648 on the previous year's total. This increase is more than accounted for under sub-head N. Only sub-heads A, H, I, J, N, O, Q, R and W appear to call for special comment.

With regard to sub-head A—£341,840 —salaries, wages and allowances under Sub-head A are increased by £3,100, representing normal increases in salaries and a reorganisation in the higher establishment. Sub-head H— £114,000—provides for payment of interest and sinking fund on all land bonds issued for the State contribution to the standard price of lands and for the Costs Fund. The increase of £1,000 reflects the normal progress in the purchase of tenanted land estates.

Under Sub-head I—£710,550—which provides for expenditure on the improvement of estates, purchase of tenancy interests on (late) C.D.B. estates, payments under the Workmen's Compensation Act and for assistance to migrants there is an increase of £1,250, due to additional requirements for Workmen's compensation and assistance to migrants. The figure of £700,000 for estate improvements proper is the same as last year.

With regard to sub-head J—£5,000— the sum of £10,000 provided last year under sub-head J for advances to meet deficiency of income from untenanted lands purchased under the Land Acts, 1923-36 has been reduced by half for this year, as it was found that the previous year's estimate was too high for the actual expenditure incurred. In view of the conjectural nature of a number of the items which affect this sub-head, it is difficult to make an accurate forecast of the expenditure in a particular year.

Sub-head N—£60,000—under which the exceptional increase of £59,000 occurs this year, covers advances to enable payments, prescribed by the Land Act, 1931, to be made, pending recoupment by the persons liable therefor, in cases in which the purchase proceedings for holdings are subsequently dismissed or the purchase price altered. The appropriate Land Bonds issued in respect of such holdings have to be redeemed and provision must be made for amounts that may become payable to the tenants or landlords of such holdings.

Up to the present, expenditure in this respect has been met out of a suspense account (only actual net losses being charged to the sub-head N), but the suspense account is now being cleared and it is proposed that payments will, in future, be charged to this sub-head in the first instance. It is estimated that a sum of £40,000 is required to clear and wind up the suspense account and that a further sum of £20,000 will be required to meet advances which may have to be made during the current year. A total of £60,000 is thus put down under sub-head N, but £40,000 of this will be nonrecurring.

It is estimated that £10,000 of the advances made in the year 1939-40 and previously will be recovered as an appropriation-in-aid within the current year, and that the greater part of the entire expenditure under this sub-head will be ultimately recovered.

Sub-head O—£2,500. The amount provided under sub-head O for advances to provide funds for the maintenance of embankments or other works in this year is increased to £2,500 as compared with £200 last year. It is difficult to estimate the requirements under this sub-head, but having regard to the proposals at present under consideration it is anticipated that a sum of £2,500 may be required in the year 1939-40.

Sub-head Q—£625,000. The increase of £13,000 under sub-head Q represents the normal provision for additional advances in Land Bonds to be made in the coming year and the consequent revision of the annuities by which such advances are repayable, involving a corresponding deficiency in the Land Bond Fund.

Sub-head R—£2,000. The amount provided under Sub-head R to finance purchase proceedings still pending under the Land Acts of 1903-1909 has been reduced this year to £2,000, as compared with £6,000 for last year. The few cases remaining to be disposed of under the old Acts are difficult to clear off, and £2,000 is likely to be sufficient for anything that can be done in the current year.

Sub-head W—£12,000. Under Sub-head W there is a decrease of £4,000 in the amount required to provide for lodgment fees and expenses payable to county registrars in respect of proceedings for recovery of arrears of Land Purchase Annuities. It is difficult to estimate accurately under this head, but it is expected that the sum of £12,000 will be sufficient for the current year.

Sub-head X—Appropriations-in-Aid— £158,700. The appropriations in aid of the Vote are expected to realise this year £12,985 more than last year. This increase is mainly due to the introduction under item (9) of a sum of £10,000 which is expected to be recovered from the amount to be expended under Sub-head N. There is also an increase of £3,000 under item (6) by way of Excess Annuities, mainly attributable to advances for improvements.

As regards the general work of the Land Commission during the past year, the legal difficulties in regard to the compulsory acquisition of untenanted land for division have persisted, and the Land Commission operations have been mainly confined to lands which the owners agreed to sell. The Land Bill which has been introduced is mainly intended to provide that the Land Commission shall be in a position to exercise the powers of compulsory acquisition which the Legislature intended. The hold-up in compulsory acquisition and resumption proceedings has had a retarding effect on the division of land, and it is expected that the area divided in the year ended 31st March last will amount to approximately 40,000 acres, which is considerably less than the area divided in previous years. The final figures are, however, not yet available.

As regards colony migration during the past year, nine additional holdings have been allotted to migrants from the Gaeltacht at Clongill, County Meath. Migration from other congested areas has also been carried out during the year and some 34 holdings in the Counties of Meath, Kildare and Westmeath have been provided for small groups of migrants from Mayo, Kerry and Sligo.

The revesting of holdings in tenant-purchasers is being proceeded with as expeditiously as possible. The final figures for the year are, however, not yet available.

The expenditure on estate improvement works during the year amounted to approximately £670,000, which is the largest sum ever expended by the Land Commission in a single year under this head. A considerable portion of this expenditure was in respect of improvement works on lands acquired and divided in previous years. Approximately 1,010 dwellinghouses have been completed during the year and, in addition, advances have been made to supplement grants by the Department of Local Government and Public Health for the erection of 420 dwellinghouses.

The collection of land purchase annuities is gradually improving. The total arrear for all gales at the 31st January, 1939, was £1,215,404 as compared with £1,278,435 at 31st January, 1938, and £1,318,404 at 31st January, 1937. Of the amount collectable for the November-December gale of 1938, over 75 per cent. has been already collected.

Mr. McMenamin

I move that the Vote be referred back for reconsideration. I am doing so mainly because of two replies that were given to me by the Minister on questions which I addressed to him. I want to ascertain whether the Minister considers these matters serious or not, and what are the possible developments with regard to the two factors that I dealt with so far as the future is concerned. I take a serious view of them. I do not know whether the Minister does or not. If the Minister had given me more information at the time I do not think there would have been very much need for me to speak on this. I learned that on 31st January the Land Commission held 3,422nulla bona returns. What that means is that you had that number of farms or holdings in this small State of 26 counties on which there were no seizable goods. I wonder if the House takes a serious view of that and appreciates what it means? How many people in the country really know about it? They may know about one such farm in their own locality, but do they know that we have so many farms of the kind in the State? It may not be that 3,422 farmers are concerned in this because one man may own two holdings. As a rule, you have a receivable order in respect of each holding, but the fact, at any rate, is that on that date you had that number of holdings or farms in the State on which there were no seizable goods.

On 31st January the amount of land annuity arrears outstanding was £1,215,404. Deputies must be aware that up to the May-June gale of 1933 all the liabilities of the Land Commission were wiped out. As well as I remember, the November gale for 1933 was funded where the tenant purchaser wanted to have it funded. Any tenant purchaser who wanted to pay it was free to do so. Roughly, the position was that on 1st January, 1934, the books of the Land Commission, for all practical purposes, were clear with regard to any arrears, and then the land annuities were halved. Yet, in spite of that. on the 1st January this year we find that the arrears amount to £1,215,404, while we have 3,422 holdings on which there are no seizable goods.

Speaking in the Dáil on 13th July, 1933, on the Second Reading of the Land Bill of that year—I quote from volume 48 of the Dáil Debates, column 2385—the Minister said:—

"The arrears which have accumulated under all the Land Acts over all the years to the 31st December, 1932, amount to the sum of £2,972,000. From this has to be deducted about £250,000 representing the arrears over the three years' mark which are now to be written off as bad debts."

As I read that, what it conveys to me is that in the year 1930, under all the Land Acts, the arrears outstanding amounted to only £250,000, while the arrears outstanding on the 1st January, 1939—this is on the halved annuities—amount to £1,215,404, and on top of that we have 3,422 holdings on which there are no seizable goods. What I am curious about is this: What is going to be the end of this, and where are we travelling? I can quite see the Minister sitting back composedly in his chair, folding his arms, and saying: "All is well with me because all that I have to do in order to recoup myself for the arrears is to draw on the Guarantee Fund." That leaves the county councils and the local ratepayers with the baby. That is simply their position, holding the baby. What is troubling me, taking the long view of this country and of its peace, happiness and prosperity, is that as long as the Minister is prepared to be content with passing the baby on to the county councils a great injustice is being done to those who are endeavouring to pay their way.

In connection with that there is something that very particularly affects my own county. These arrears are due. But they are not due to the Land Commission at all. The Land Commission have already got them out of the Guarantee Fund. The ratepayers have had to put up these arrears. When the Land Commission gets them back now I know they will recredit them to the county council. But in the meantime the local farmer who is paying his rent and rates is not alone doing that, but he is also paying what is due by defaulters in the county. He is paying a proportion of that in addition to his own rent and rates. The trouble about that is this—in the case of people who are unable to pay, their neighbours who are in production and who have seizable stock must pay those arrears in addition to their own. I find, subject to correction, that the local ratepayers who have paid their own rates and annuities have also paid £1,250,404 over and above what they should have paid. That is because that amount is deducted from the Agricultural Grant which should go to the different county councils in relief of rates.

Will anybody say what is to be the end of this? Now the county councils are just as much part of this State as is the Government itself. These arrears accumulate. The man with any chattels on his farm must pay his rates or his chattels will be seized. That is to say, farmers who are in production must provide the arrears due by others. That brings us down to the case of the marginal farm, that is the farm held by a man who is not yet out of production. But that man who is just barely able to keep his head above water has to bear portion of the arrears due by the defaulters. That is how this liability is liquidated. If this process is continued it is going to put that man—the marginal farmer—out of production at an early date. The margin may be a small one, it may be a slender one. The man is just able to swim along, but the placing of this extra burden on him, the discharging of another man's liability, may be the very thing that will sink that farmer. In that way the State is increasing the number who will be put out of production and reducing the number who will have to carry all the burden. This will eventuate in piling up the burden of the lesser number of solvent or semi-solvent people who remain. Each year more and more marginal men will be put out of production. Men who would just survive if they had not to bear the extra burden will be smashed and put out of production if this thing goes on. If that is continued, it will be ultimately found that year by year the status of the rest of the farmers will be brought down to the marginal line. That is the direction towards which this system is leading.

I was somewhat startled at hearing the Minister say that he was going to take further and more drastic steps with regard to the acquisition of land. I regard that statement very seriously. The Minister, I am sure, knows as well as any Deputy here or any person in the country that, as a result of the drastic powers with regard to the acquisition of land, the value of land as a security has practically disappeared in this State. Every Deputy here knows that. Let any farmer take the title deeds of his farm into a bank and ask for £200, £250, or £300 and he will be told that he would not get one penny on that security. That is because the bank manager has no assurance that, at an early date, the Land Commission will not send down an inspector and take over possession of that man's farm. We know, generally speaking, that would not happen. Yet it is capable of being done, and the man who is asked to advance the money on the security of the title deeds? of a farm is very perturbed at being asked to make such a loan, which, of course, he must refuse.

The best credit in the world is the land in this country or, indeed, the land in any country. Generally speaking, there is no better security in the world than the land of this or any country. The land is the real national wealth. Nobody will question the veracity of what I say, that to-day, for practical purposes, land as a security for an advance has gone down to zero. That is owing to the powers taken by the Land Commission of acquiring land.

I understand there are 3,422 farmers who have not a head of cattle on their land. How are these people going to get credit? How are they going to be put on their feet? How are they going to be put into production? These are the problems that have to be faced. I confess that after thinking it over I see no remedy so long as the present powers of acquiring land remain to the Land Commission. I see no hope for these people. The value of land as a security has gone down so much that even a body like the Agricultural Credit Corporation set up by the Government for the purpose of giving credit to farmers are affected in their outlook in advancing money to farmers. This is owing to the compulsory powers the Land Commission have been given to acquire land compulsory. One is surprised at hearing the Minister say that he intends to take further and more drastic powers, when one remembers that by the powers that he already has, he has destroyed the national asset as security. I must confess to the Minister that I am without any constructive proposal as a solution for the problem, but until you repeal the present compulsory powers, taken under the 1923 Land Act, or unless the State puts up a capital sum it will be impossible to proceed along lines which would ultimately lead to the solution which we all desire. I would suggest to the Minister that he should agree with his colleagues in the Cabinet to remove those compulsory powers which are destroying the land as a security for money, or to vote a capital sum to help these people. We cannot sit down and fold our arms in this matter: it is a problem which the House must face. If these men are not put back into production they are going to pull down, year after year, the marginal men who are now just able to survive economically. Is there no hope that these compulsory powers will be eased, because that is the only hope for these 3,422 men that I have mentioned and for the men to follow them?

On the Second Reading of the 1933 Land Act Deputy Hogan made a speech, of which the following is an extract. I am going to quote it in full for the House, because I want the Minister to consider it seriously. It is reported in volume 48, column 2399 of the Official Debates:—

"Let us come on now to the question of acquisition. The problem of congestion is a very serious problem. I forget at the moment the number of congests undealt with up to the present time, but there is certainly a great number in Connemara alone. There are thousands of cases there undealt with, and it is the same all over the country. There are probably 20,000 or 30,000 cases to be dealt with. Everybody knows that the most drastic Land Bill in the world, even with absolute confiscation and cutting down holdings to a level not even contemplated by the Fianna Fáil Party, would not be adequate to deal with this problem."

That is to say, that there is not enough land in the country to go round.

"But such as they are, these congests are the real problem and they are entitled to be dealt with first. What is happening in this Bill? You are accepting landless men quite apart from herds and other suitable persons. That is good politics, I admit, but it is rotten economics and rotten national administration, I have seen a few landless men dealt with by the present Government, as they have power to deal with them, since they have come into office, and what did they give them? They were forced by the exigencies of the situation, by the shortage of land and the number of congests, to deal with the landless men. They gave them, in fact, uneconomic holdings, and instead of dealing with so many congests in place of these men, they simply added to the number of congests."

I suggest that the late Deputy Hogan, when he made than speech, did not know how serious the result would be. You all know that those compulsory powers were taken—it may have been good politics or bad politics but, at any rate, it was bad for the nation. Now, let us see what has been done under these compulsory powers in order to solve the congestion problem of the West. According to the summary given on page 6 of the Department's report dated 31st March, 1938, the total number of families transferred to holdings amounted to 90. Of course, there is other distribution —the special distribution of land, but here was an opportunity to provide for the congests of the West and of the Gaeltacht, and only 90 families have been transferred, according to the table issued by the Department. While that is all that has been done with regard to removing the congests, there has been, on the other hand, an entire loss of the best security of the country, the security of the land itself. I am convinced that my opinion in this matter is correct and I will go on reiterating it. I understand that the average acreage of land allotted is about 22 acres and, in my opinion, by giving these people only 22 acres you are creating a new congestion problem. I plead for a 40 to 50-acre farm or, at least, for a 30-acre farm that would carry, say, two more cows and the consequent young cattle, and which would make all the difference in the economic well-being of these people. In my opinion, what is going to take place on these 20-acre farms is what took place where I was born myself. Where I was born was a congested district. There was a good lot of land, but it was bad land. There was practically no arable land and the farms were only capable of carrying a man and his wife. It could not really carry the children at all. What happened was that the local shopkeeper gave credit to the father and mother until the children were fit to go to America and earn money to pay for what reared them. I am proud to think that in those days there was no Statute of Limitations. The debt was due for ten, 15 or 20 years, but as soon as the children went out to America and earned the money it came back and the accounts were paid. The very same thing is bound to happen on these 20 acres of land. Such a farm cannot carry more than a man and his wife and a couple of young children. If there are four or five boys and two or three girls—take an average of those families as six or seven—with the best efforts in the world, how many of them can remain to work that farm and keep it in production along with the father and mother? If the mother is a comparatively young woman, they will only want one son. They would not even want a daughter to help in the housework. What are you to do with the five or six others? They must go to England or Scotland. There is no such thing for them as getting employment with larger farmers in their own neighbourhood. If the land has been divided up into 20-acre farms, there is nobody to employ them. It is obvious there is no alternative but to go to Scotland, England or America, as in the past. That being so, has not the main purpose that we all desire been defeated, that is to say, to preserve the Gaeltacht, to bring them into the middle of the land, as it were, and spread from there. Is not the Gaeltacht going to disappear and will it not be a tragic thing, for want of drafting the scheme properly, that we are going to do a bad job?

I hope I am wrong in all this prophecy, but I am convinced I am right. I believe we are creating a new congested districts problem. The Minister is not finished with it; he will be creating colonies and dividing more land, and I would even now appeal to him, in God's name, when he is doing this job, to do it well. Make it a job that will remain, that will be a real asset to the State and provide for the citizens of the State and keep them in production in their own country.

Of course, analogies can be ridiculous and comparisons can be ridiculous, but I wonder has the Minister paid any attention to what has been done elsewhere. I see that in Italy they aim at a 50-acre farm. I myself have been aiming at a 50-acre farm. I have pleaded that in this House. Of course, the comparison might be all wrong, because the quality of the land may differ. Even with the 50-acre farm, assume that only 14 to 16 acres of the land are good, prime land, if you had the other poorer class of land which would carry stock and sheep for grazing, that would serve the purpose of a farm, though not quite so well. Why do they aim at a 50-acre farm? Surely they have considered it carefully. That reinforces my own view, and I would appeal to the Minister to consider that policy. You have not enough land to go round, admittedly. There can be no criticism. Do not be afraid on that point. Everybody must agree that there is not enough land to go round. I say that when you are going to do this job of land division, do it well. Make sure that in any farm you give, the people that occupy that farm do their part well. Do your part well and give a man and his wife an opportunity to live on that farm with their children up to the point where the sons could have earned some money to buy a farm elsewhere, not in the colony at all, but outside it, and some money could be provided for the daughter by way of dowry when she is getting married. It is my opinion that any farm that is given under this scheme should be capable of doing that.

I do submit to the Minister that it is not fair that, because he has got the Guarantee Fund in his hands, he should go to that and draw on it freely. The day will come when you will put local administration out of action. It will break down, because, if you go on step by step, year after year, until ultimately you reach a crisis, then we will do what we in this country always do, put up our hands and begin to weep. Why not take time by the forelock? Why not do something about the arrears of annuities? It is a serious thing in a small country like this. I take a very grave view of it. I would like everybody in the country to realise that there are 3,422 farms with not one four-legged beast on them. I am not at the moment dealing with the question of the position under the Land Act of 1933. It is a question of hammering out what is really the machinery that is peculiar to your people, which fits into their traditions and their instincts. I wonder has the fact that there are arrears of half the land annuities, accumulated over a short period, any relation at all to the machinery created under the Land Act of 1933? I wonder is it because we provided in that Act that the sheriff should do the work that was done by the State solicitors up to 1933 that, in the case of a farmer who finds himself in a tight corner and cannot pay the money and gets a notice from the sheriff, the sheriff will go to seize the goods only to find that the entire farm has been cleared? I wonder has the Minister inquired into that at all; has he had any reports on it or as to the reason for that accumulation of arrears? The sheriffs, at least as far as I know, are all decent men and do their work in the best way they can but, of course, they have got rigid orders and have to carry them out. Everybody in this House, and in this State, knows that there is no official more unpopular in this country than the sheriff. He is one of the officials associated with the worst events that took place in this country—evictions. In regard to these 3,422 farmers who have not a four-legged beast on their farms, it would be interesting to know what would have happened if the machinery were left as it was. The Land Commission would do their best to give them time, before sending word to the State Solicitor to take proceedings. What happened then was he sent out a notice, and the farmers could then be divided into various classes. First you had the people who paid the moment they got the notice. Then you had the people who came along and sobbed and said: "Give me until the next fair; I am selling so much stock, and I will pay it then." Then you had the very small class who did not bother at all until proceedings had to be taken against them, but in the main they paid when the proceedings were taken. You had none of this thing at all—you had not that number of nulla bona returns. I do not know what the figures were in my country, which is a very big country, consisting of an enormous number of small holdings. I should be very interested to know the number of nulla bona returns held by the Land Commission on, let us say, 31st January, 1933. Seizures were practically unknown. What I am curious about is whether any of those holdings is now derelict on account of the fact that the tenant knew the bailiff was coming on a particular date, and cleared out the whole farm. Certainly there is some explanation for it, and I would be very interested to know it.

The really crucial matter, irrespective of all that speculation, is how you are going to put them into production. Are you going to let them remain a drag on the other farmers who are paying rent and rates. Will they not pull the other people down? I will be told: "Not at all; those other men are prosperous." Again I should like to refer to those marginal men on whom you are placing their neighbours' liability. You then create a new list of marginal men for the following year, and you will go on increasing that number. I should like to know from the Minister what he is going to do about those arrears, and about those 3,422 farms which have not a four-legged beast on them. Is he going to take them over? I will put a proposition before him. He is talking about taking new and increased drastic powers for acquiring land under the new Land Bill. I would suggest to him to repeal the powers which already exist for the compulsory acquisition of land.

An Ceann Comhairle

I suppose the Deputy is aware that he may not advocate legislation or the repeal of legislation.

Mr. Boland

He has been doing it for the last hour.

An Ceann Comhairle

I think the Deputy, direct or indirectly, has advocated it many times within the last half hour.

Mr. McMenamin

I have, I am making a proposal now.

Mr. Boland

Again?

Mr. McMenamin

Why not take over those farms? There is not a four-legged beast on them, and there are 3,422 of them. I have repeated the number ad nauseam. There is that number of derelict farms. You want land. Why not take over those farms? They are useless at present. According to your own return there is not a four-legged beast on them. If you do not take them over, what are you going to do about them? Are you coming to the aid of those people? Are those farms to remain there dérelict, puiling down the other people step by step, until ultimately they will pull down the entire machine? The land is the only real security in this State for the advance of money. On those 3,422 farms you could not get a £5 note credit. Is not that a frightful thing? Fifty years ago, in some of the worst and bleakest days in this country, when we were fighting the landlords—the position was so acute at the time that I can recall those things, although I was only a child then—there was nothing like that at all. I should like to hear the Minister deal with that problem. I should like him, first of all, to deal with the question of arrears, the reason why they accumulated, and the prospects of collecting them. Of course agricultural prices are improving, and I was very glad to hear from the Minister that he has collected 75 per cent. of this money. I was very glad to hear that, because I always said that if the Irish farmer had the money he would pay, and my opinion as to the integrity of the tenant farmers of Ireland has already been borne out, although the economic war was only settled last May. We have been told that 75 per cent. of this amount has been collected. I think that is excellent, when you consider the number of farms which have not a four-legged beast on them, and the number of others which are very near that line. It is a splendid thing that 75 per cent. of the liabilities has been collected. I was very glad to hear that, because it vindicated that splendid body, the finest peasantry in Europe, the tenant farmers of Ireland.

I intended to deal separately with the question of sub-division, but I will just leave it with the suggestion that the Minister should seriously consider increasing the acreage. I seriously suggest to him that an extra eight or ten acres would supply the margin which would carry an extra couple of beasts, and would be the deciding factor between existence and a frugal standard of living. It would make all the difference. Two extra cows would bring, say, £16 or £18, which would pay the rent and rates, and help to meet the cost of foodstuffs, clothes and boots. With 20-acre farms it cannot be done. There is no margin. I should like to hear from the Minister what stock those 20-acre farms carry— the number of cows, the number of calves, the number of year-olds and two-year-olds. I suppose they carry one horse. When a job is being done I should like to see it well done, and I should like to see everything possible done to help those people. Perhaps the Minister would also tell us whether the Department is doing anything with regard to getting a market for the surplus milk. In the neighbourhood where those colonies are being placed are there any creameries? Is there any market for the disposal of the surplus milk, or is it being churned at home? If it is being churned at home are those people having any difficulty owing to the restrictions on farm butter and is the Department helping them in hat regard?

The next matter to which I should like to refer is the provision for pedigree bulls and boars. I take it that none of those small farms can carry a bull for stud purposes. There would be no room for an animal of that kind. We would have to place him among the cows and he might be interfering with and abusing them and interrupting their milk production. The same thing would apply to boars; there would be no place for a boar to roam about. Has that aspect been considered and has anything been done about it? Are these things available for the farmers with regard to stock production?

If nothing has been done in that direction, I was thinking that in future, when you are distributing an estate on which there is a mansion, an arrangement might be made along the lines I have in mind. Assume a difficulty has arisen with regard to the keeping of pedigree stock for breeding. If none of the small farmers is able to carry on, I suggest that one farm of larger acreage, 50, 60 or 80 acres, would be left in one holding so that one man could keep a bull and a boar and, perhaps, a horse for breeding purposes. If the question has solved itself, that is all to the good; but if it has not solved itself, I make that suggestion to the Minister and I appeal to him to do something to put these farms, on which there is nothing, into production. Many farms are derelict, and, to my mind, that is tragic, particularly when there could be so many small farms carrying families. That is the position in County Donegal and I am sure it applies to other counties as well. I should like to know what the Minister proposes to do about them.

Again, we are told in the same Article of the Constitution, that the State pledges itself to safeguard the weaker sections of the community. I do not think there is any weaker section of the community in this country than the struggling small farmers and I do not think that the State is taking adequate means to safeguard these weaker sections of the community when we have a special force employed to harass and persecute those people and, by so doing, pile up costs in respect of land annuities. We know that on many small farms this special force makes a practice of visiting perhaps weekly or, at any rate, fortnightly and demanding payments. Even when they receive a small payment, and when it is not humanly possible to make a further payment for at least a month, they repeat their visit within a week or a fortnight and, of course, every visit means increased cost to the unfortunate tenant. I think one of the purposes of the alternation of the Land Acts, which enabled arrears of land annuities to be collected without proceeding through the courts, was to eliminate costs. Yet, we find the position is that costs are even greater than when we had the old system of collecting annuities through the courts and that is due entirely to the frequency with which visits are made to farmers' holdings. I think, at least, there should be some reason and commonsense in dealing with people who are almost destitute and there should not be, under any circumstances, this policy of piling on increased costs. I have found instances where the amount claimed was less than £2 and upon that there was a charge for collection exceeding £2. Now, that seems to be altogether harsh and unjust and it is a thing that the Minister should seek to avoid.

This policy is driving a large and industrious section of the community to complete despair. For that reason, I think the Minister should consider the whole question of arrears and that he should seek to have them spread over a considerable time. It may be suggested that such action would require legislation, but I think that, at the present time, some attempts are being made by the Department to spread arrears over a few years, but I think the period allowed is not quite sufficient. I think that the period should be somewhat extended so that the farmers would at least be enabled to recover from the conditions under which they have been labouring during the past seven or eight years. There is no doubt whatever that any farmer who can by any means find the money when it is due will pay it in order to avoid these increased costs. It is those people who are the poorer section of the community, people who cannot find the money by any means when it is demanded, who are forced to bear this terrific burden of increased costs. Reference has been made to the fact that there are 3,423 holdings upon which there are no goods whatever. In addition, it must be remembered that there is an infinitely greater number, perhaps ten times that number, of holdings upon which there is inadequate stock, upon which there is only half the stock required to carry on production. It is this section of the community which is being driven steadily to despair and which is being driven out of production by the intensive collection of outstanding arrears. For that reason, I suggest that some little consideration should be given to enable those people to hold on until times improve, as they may possibly improve.

There is another branch of the Minister's Department which deals with the acquisition and division of land. I should like to suggest, first of all, that where lands have been divided some consideration should be given to the necessity of providing economic holdings. We know that most of the farms which are being divided at present are being divided, to a very large extent, into what are known as uneconomic holdings. It may be asked, what exactly is an economic holding? There are various definitions, but I think the most reasonable definition would be a holding upon which it is possible for a farmer to keep at least two horses and a complete set of agricultural machinery and equipment. You cannot carry on an agricultural holding without a complete set of farm implements and you cannot afford to keep a complete set of farming instruments, I believe, on a holding of less than £25 valuation. That would be a holding of 30, 40 or, perhaps, 50 statute acres, according to the nature and quality of the land. To divide land into smaller holdings is to make them uneconomic. It is simply creating new congested districts and is not leading to increased production or better production.

Again, it is absolutely necessary that great care must be exercised in selection of tenants. To my mind, the most suitable tenant, after the uneconomic holdings in the district have been dealt with, is the son of an industrious small farmer who has at least some capital with which to start operations. Any other type of applicant is hardly ever likely to be successful. I think that if such care were exercised we would have a better return out of the holdings which have been created. We know that on a considerable number of holdings which have been established there is no production whatever. The land is actually being set for grazing. It is not as satisfactory, even for grazing, as before the lands were divided, owing to the fact that fences have been erected between the various divisions. That is a system which cannot be allowed to continue. The Department must pay strict attention to the type of applicant to which these holdings are given and they must pay more attention to the size of the holdings which are being established.

Again, it is about time that something was done to relieve the position under which the burden of unpaid annuities is being transferred to the ratepayers. We know that the Guarantee Fund was set up after the passing of the Land Acts by the British Government but there never was anything in the nature of justice behind the setting up of that Guarantee Fund. It never could be justified on any principle. We know that when an army of occupation is in possession of a hostile country it sometimes imposes punishments upon sections of the community. For example, towns are sometimes burned by invading or occupying armies but I never heard of nor do I think there exists in any country, a system under which other persons are penalised for the default of one individual.

Then I will leave the matter. There is another matter to which I want to refer. One of the officials employed at sheriffs' sales, an official of the Minister's Department, is a citizen of Northern Ireland, imported into this State for the purpose of officially attending sheriffs' sales. I understand that money is provided by some Department of this State, although the official concerned is protected by an armed force of the Government of Northern Ireland. It looks very badly for this State to be compelled to import a person of that kind from Northern Ireland and depend upon the Government of Northern Ireland to protect that person and his ill-gotten property. I think that is one of the things which must inevitably lead to the people of the Six Counties having a very low opinion of this State and of its Government. Surely the people in the Six Counties must say: "It must be a queer type of Government that has to import a creature of this type from our State in order to carry out the law. It must be a strange type of law that requires to be propped up by a person like that from the Six Counties." I think that that does not tend to give the people in Northern Ireland the opinion they should have of the people down here, and of our Government and institutions here. We know that there are various "isms" throughout the country, but here the Minister and his Department seem to be creating a new "ism" known in my constituency as "Morganism," which is a new name, let us say, for legalised robbery. The sooner the Government decide to dispense with the services of Thomas Morgan and people like him, and to carry out the law in a more dignified manner, the better for the Government and for the administration of the law generally. I am told that the services of other officials who gave unsatisfactory service, such as Sergent Moore, who distinguished himself in Marsh's Yard, have been dispensed with. Why not dispense with the services of Thomas Morgan?

Mr. Gorey

With regard to the point raised as to the size of farms, I notice from the operations of the Land Commission in the division of land that they have gone altogether outside the standard set by the 1923 Act and in many cases have only given workmen four-acre plots. They have refused to give them a farm, but they have given them four-acre plots almost in every case on the estates divided. I do not know what is done in other counties, but that is what operates in my country, and there have not been many estates divided there. These people are not labourers or farmers; they are uneconomic holders. Why these men should not get a farm is more than I can understand. When the standard was set in 1923, the opinion held then, and which was more or less embodied in the Act, was that a farm to be economic should contain 20 or 21 of the larger acres, which roughtly would work out at about 33 statute acres. That standard was set 16 years ago, so that we would be looking for more than that now, because people even with much larger farms than that are inclined to leave the land. What was attractive with regard to the size of a farm 16 years ago would certainly not be attractive to-day. The tendency is all going that way, and the young people are leaving the land. I say that a farm of good land should contain not less than 20 or 21 Irish acres. About 20 Irish acres corresponds to 33 English acres, and holdings could be adjusted accordingly. If the Minister offers the excuse, that the reason that is done is that the Government is faced with a very difficult problem, I admit that they are, but that is no excuse for creating another problem, that it will be impossible for statesmen or governments to deal with in future. If we have an emigration problem now, what will the problem be if hosts of small holdings are created in every county? What country will absorb the people then? It is all very well to get out of the difficulty in a certain way at present, but if it is to be done unjustly, it will be only making the position impossible in the future. There must be something wrong with present standards.

The principle reason I intervened was to refer to the procedure in the courts when dealing with standard purchase annuities. It seems to be the result of a rule or a regulation that was made. Take the position before the land comes up for vesting, or before the standard purchase annuity applies. Notice is sent down giving the new rent, based on the standard purchase annuity. The tenant appeals against it, and the Land Commission then sends down a valuer to fix what the annuity should be. In one case that I know of the standard purchase annuity was fixed at £91 10s. When the tenant appealed, a valuer from the Land Commission was sent down and he fixed the amount at £63. The landlord then appealed and when the case came before the courts in Dublin, the Land Commission valuation was confirmed, and no costs were given. On the other hand, take the case of a tenant and landlord for a smaller parcel of land, the nominal rent of which is £12, where the standard purchase annuity worked out at £7 16s. The tenant appealed, and the Land Commission valuer fixed the standard purchase annuity at four guineas. The landlord appealed against that, and the court reversed the decision of their own valuer, by raising the amount to the original figure. I am not quarrelling with the right to do that, but I do quarrel with the fact that the tenant was mulcted in five guineas costs. He had no responsibility for the act of the Land Commission's valuer. That was done under some rule. It is a wrong rule. A man who was a judge of his business was sent down to make the valuation. That is the reason he was put into that position. He knows the value of land, and knew the value in that instance by comparison with land of the same quality around it. His decision was upset in Dublin. The procedure followed is that the landlord employs a valuer, and the tenant employs another, and it is then a question of hard swearing. The hardest swearing takes place, in other words perjury, and a decision is given, but the unfortunate occupier of the land is mulcted in costs.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I think the Deputy is going somewhat outside the Estimate. I do not question his right to discuss the rules, but he must not discuss decisions of the courts.

Mr. Gorey

I am not discussing the decisions but what happens in the courts.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I am afraid that the Deputy suggested that the courts decide on the hardest swearing.

Mr. Gorey

Is it under a rule of the courts that costs are given? I understand it is not law. Then it must be some rule made by the Land Commission. If so, it ought not to be made, and should be revised. It is bad enough to upset the decision of the man who was on the spot and valued the land, but it seems extraordinary to mulct the tenant who had nothing to do with the appeal in five guineas costs. I am not going now to refer to the operations of the Land Acts, but to the fixing of the old judicial rents, when we had the spectacle of professional valuers who, if employed by the landlord, valued land, say, at £2 an acre, and if employed by the tenant at 16/- an acre, until the matter became a public scandal. That is being imitated ever since, and it accounts for the disregard for an oath that prevails. That is what created that position. How could it be otherwise? You had responsible people without any regard for an oath. Is it any wonder that the common people followed their example until we have the position to-day that there is no regard for an oath? That is the experience of every one who has anything to do with the courts of justice. I say that the provision regarding costs should be regulated, and that whatever rule is there should be changed. I am not going to suggest how it should be changed. The question of an appeal does not arise, but the question of a valuation fixed by a Government valuer is in question. I do not know if the Land Commission should be held liable for costs, or whether any costs at all should be given in these cases. In my opinion, they should not be given. I will not go into the question of the decision of the courts. I could make very scurrilous and uncomplimentary remarks about that, and with plenty of foundation, but I will not do so. The position should be remedied.

When the Estimate for Local Government was under discussion I referred to the fencing that was being done throughout the country. Everyone knows that we have not enough land to go round, and for that reason there should be no land wasted on clay fencing that is four and a half or five feet high, with five feet of a base. In all, there is often 15 feet of waste land in connection with fencing, until a plot is ploughed or levelled. That type of fence is a bad fence. If there must be clay fences they should not be more than two and a half feet high, and planted with quicks which cattle cannot break down. In England and on the Continent, where they have more land available, less of it is wasted in that way. With cement posts, cattle can graze in such a way that only where the pole stands will be waste. If necessary, quicks could be grown on one side until the land was tilled. As we have a very pressing problem in getting land for the people, it is wrong to have any of it wasted. I suggest seriously that the Minister should insist on the minimum of waste when estates are being divided. I notice when estates are being divided that water seems to be the main consideration. Wherever there is water we have the position on big properties that there is a stretch of 50 yards extending for a mile or a mile and a half, which becomes almost a right of way, and in bad weather the place is in a disgraceful condition. Some other method of providing water should be resorted to. It is impossible to have proper holdings when 50 yards of them are a commonage. It is impossible to have tillage holdings or mixed farming under such circumstances.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

I always look upon this Estimate as rather a bit of a humbug, because the Land Commission has a certain amount of work to do, while the Minister has nothing at all. The Minister has nothing at all to do with it. The big work of the Land Commission is to acquire land and to break up land. That is the big job they have to do, and the Minister is not allowed to interfere at all. By statute, he has as little to do with it as the man in the street. Therefore, when we are discussing the matter we are discussing it in the hopes that the Big Four who do the real work will either read our speeches or that possibly they might be courteous enough to drop in and listen to us. In addressing the Minister, however, we must merely use him as a conduit pipe to convey the information that we wish to have conveyed to the Big Four who really direct and run this Department without interference, or legal interference at any rate, by the Minister at all.

I should like to point out that I, at any rate, entirely disagree with the view that an economic holding must be a holding of 20 Irish acres or of £20 valuation or £30 valuation, as it has been put. My view of an economic holding is absolutely different. My view of an economic holding is a holding which is usually put at £7 or £8 for the West of Ireland. I think that is rather on the low side, but I would say that in County Mayo, my native county, a holding of £10 valuation is an economic holding, and I sincerely wish that every person with a £2 or £3 or £5 holding in County Mayo could be brought up to the £10, and I would say that, at any rate so far as County Mayo is concerned, the problem of congestion would be solved. Those are my views, at any rate, on the relief of congestion. But I do not see that there is at all the possibility at any time of bringing up the entire population of County Mayo to the £10 limit. It is impossible, but it is being dealt with, and there are two methods by which it can be dealt with.

One method is, as far as possible, to take the large persons, if there are any left now, who might be called large holders—if there are people left with a £25 or £30 valuation in County Mayo —and bring them up to Meath. I would prefer to see those persons, few as they are, being brought up to Meath and given holdings in Meath in preference to the smaller persons being brought up and given land directly in Meath. In other words, I should like to keep what was the older practice of the Land Commission enforced as far as possible; that is to say, if a man had a substantial farm and it was acquired and he received another holding in lieu of it in the County of Meath, it was the substantial or big man and not the small man who was brought up. When I speak of Meath, the Minister will understand that I am not confining it to that county, and that I also mean Kildare or Westmeath, and, possibly, in some cases, Roscommon. My reason is that the way in which Mayo farming, or farming generally in the whole of the West of Ireland, is carried out must be this: We are entirely, or almost entirely, dependent on cattle. Of course, there are also sheep, but on the whole the main source of income for the small holder in the West of Ireland is from the sale of his meat cattle. These cattle are seldom finished in Connacht. They are sold in a forward store condition, say, roughly, about two years old, and are sold in order to be finished on the richer grazing lands in the east of the country. If these richer grazing lands are entirely broken up amongst small holders who will rear their own store cattle and will not need to purchase any store cattle in the West of Ireland, you will create an entirely new problem in the West, as I believe you will also do, not merely in Connacht, but probably in Donegal and parts of West Cork and Kerry. On the other hand, if the larger man is brought up and given a holding in County Meath, and if the congestion in County Mayo is relieved by the breaking up of the larger holding—if, as I say, there are any left there—the larger man in Meath will continue to buy store cattle in the local fairs.

I have very little further to say on this debate, but I want to reiterate what I have said for the last three or four years—entirely unsuccessfully— and that is that I think the sooner the Land Commission give up the practice of sending claims to the sheriff, or of direct seizing of stock, the better. It gives the greatest dissatisfaction and, on occasions, the costs of the sheriff's seizure are absolutely ridiculously out of proportion to the amount seized for. I have a couple of cases of complaints that have been made to me from my own constituency. A claim is put in the sheriff's hand for something like 30/-, and he serves a six-day notice, and then like a swoop down comes the sheriff, and there is probably, in addition, 30/- or £2 for his own expenses. That is absolutely absurd. Certainly it should not be done in any case, but, above all things, do not send out the £1 or the £2 or the £5 claims to the sheriff to go and seize. At any rate, taking these cases, the normal cheap procedure of sending out a summons before the district justice would save the tenant, and would save a tremendous amount of money because, as soon as the decree is there, the tenant will know it is there and he will pay up, and that is a better procedure than the other in which, probably as a result of not understanding the thing, he will find the sheriff at his door, and an extremely bad feeling be created. I hope sincerely that the "Big Four" will take that into consideration, because I think they are responsible also for the collection, and I hope that they will come to the conclusion that it would be very much better if they did not use the sheriff quite so much, and, instead, used the procedure of the District Court a good deal more—certainly in the smaller cases.

If the Minister could tell us, I should rather like to know if there is any guiding principle operating in the Land Commission as to the cases in which they do or do not give consent for sales. It seems to me to be a most haphazard business. I have one or two cases in which the Department have given a consent for sale, but I shall not mention them now, because I am putting down a question about one of them at any rate, and it is not very much use asking the Minister about a matter in a discussion of this kind when, naturally, he has not his files before him. It does seem to me, however, that that refusal or granting of consent to sell is given in a most haphazard fashion, and I should like to know if there is any general principle behind it.

Mr. Brasier

I do not think any Minister for Lands has ever introduced the Estimate for this Department under happier auspices to himself than the present Minister. He has now got the whole of the land annuities based on a purchase price of £10,000,000. His predecessors, going back even to the British time, collected them on a purchase price representing about £3,000,000 annuities. Many mistakes have been made since this State came into being and since the first Land Act was passed, in the matter of the land annuities. I am afraid that it has been left as a legacy to the present Minister to regulate or to review some of those mistakes. Having obtained the land annuities for what, comparatively speaking, is a nominal sum, I think that he owes it as a duty to the State to review some of the mistakes made by his predecessors. Under the policy of whatever Government is in power, the Land Commission acts as the collecting body in the matter of the land annuities. That was an exceedingly difficult duty, especially during the period of the economic war and the year that followed the settlement. I desire to express my approval and gratitude to the collection branches of the Land Commission for the help they have given to those who, through no fault of their own, got into arrears by taking the annuities from them in instalments and helping them in every way possible. They were good enough to do that subsequent to the most trying period that the agricultural industry has ever had to face in this country. I hope that it will not be faced with such an experience again.

I accept it, and will simply go on to deal with the Minister's present policy of land division. While the prices that are given for land are not high, the Minister is careful to see that those lands are not bought at anything like an economic figure. We will not question the amount of the figure, but I do very seriously question the class of people who are getting these lands. It has been remarked by previous speakers and by the late Minister for Lands and Agriculture, Deputy Hogan, that there is not enough land in the country to go round. That is admitted by everybody.

I think it ought to be a rule that only those who are best able to use that land as a national asset should get it. It should not be given to men such as in one case a man who happened to occupy a labourer's cottage near the Dinan Estate, in Castlemartyr, which is divided. In that case the board of health had to forego the arrears of rent due by that man because he was unable to pay them. The board of health was not able to collect it. At the present moment that man is again in arrear with the rent of his cottage. Yet that man is getting something in the region of 37 acres of land from the Land Commission. He is getting it without having capital, cattle, or possibly the right kind of experience. For though an agricultural labourer has a certain amount of experience, yet at the same time you would not place him at the job of undertaking a large farm and working it.

In another case a man has been given 18 acres. That man already had a slight portion of land which he very strongly urged the board of health to acquire for the building of labourers' cottages under the non-municipal scheme. He is another man who has got some of this land; others who got only five acres were much better types. Deputy Gorey alluded to men who were unable to pay the rents of their holdings and were insolvent. Surely it is inconsistent in land administration and land division that such people should be given land, without experience or capital.

I would respectfully suggest that in regard to a number of estates broken up in my area, attention has been given rather to giving land to men who are not fit to hold land at all, rather than to men who are perfectly qualified in the way of experience to work the land and who have the necessary capital to do so. If we have not land enough to go round is it not clear that the first object of the Land Commission should be to select men who have a knowledge of farming and who have the capital, even though their present holdings are small? By selecting such men benefit will be done to the country which cannot be done when insolvent people and people without experience have holdings of land allotted to them. That is a sure way to lay up a legacy of trouble for the Land Commission in the future. The Land Commission while accepting schemes of that kind are making it very difficult for the future. The position would not be so bad if the Land Commission had to forego the land annuities which they found themselves unable to collect. But the Minister has through the Guarantee Fund fortified himself with legislation which enables him to place every penny of the arrears of land annuities on the shoulders of the men who are paying their own rates and land annuities.

I would ask the Minister to direct his very special attention to this side of the question. It is not right to lay the blame on the officials of the Land Commission. What is wrong in this division of land is not due to them. It is due to the policy of the Front Bench. It is due to the policy of the Minister who advises his Government on that particular matter. No man is going to question the competence of the very experienced men at the head of the Land Commission. These men have had long years of experience. In addition they were brought up in the conservative atmosphere of the original body formed to take care of this particular side of land administration. Let no one tell me that these men are vacillating and that they are going to be swung around with every wind. No, they are carrying out the policy of the Government Front Bench. I urge upon the Minister to alter that part of the land administration system. Otherwise, the country will suffer and already everyone of us who pay land annuities and rates are suffering under that particular policy.

The Minister has mentioned the matter of untenanted land. He told us he had acquired 40,000 acres. If he could not get many applicants better than some of the people to whom he has given land, would he not stop at those 40,000 acres and see to what class of people he is going to give that land before he compulsorily acquires additional land? This compulsory acquisition of land was the greatest blow the agricultural community in this country suffered. It is a blow which has prevented them from borrowing capital for carrying on their farming operations. If a man to-day wants capital for the working of his farm, he is not able to get it. He is informed by the bank manager that there is no security in Irish land. The bank manager knows that land can be acquired at a very low figure indeed for the purpose of land division.

I have no intention of going over the ground covered by previous speakers, but I would like to call the Minister's attention to the question of the upkeep of embankments. There is one estate known as the Mud Land at Youghal. The River Blackwater runs through it. I have paid several visits to that estate, and I have endeavoured to enlist sympathy for the occupiers of these holdings. The river has made inroads into some of the land to such an extent that the occupiers have left these farms derelict. Something would need to be done in that direction. I hope the Minister will try to devote some attention to that matter. Right around the whole country there have been breakdowns on the embankments, and some of the most fertile lands have been inundated with water. People are unable to pay their rates because of this, and not through any fault of their own.

Mr. Kennedy

I have not the same complaint about land division as Deputy Brasier. Rather do I complain about the conservatism of the Land Commission in the dividing of land in my constituency. Some people are under the impression that the Midlands, particularly Meath and Westmeath, are only one vast rich plain, that there are no poor lands in these counties and no uneconomic holdings. If they had lived in these counties they would find very poor parts in them, which should necessitate the policy of coming to the aid of the uneconomic holders in these counties.

With the Government's migration policy I am wholeheartedly in support. I am in support of that policy because it would be a short-sighted national policy to be otherwise. Anyone who studies the map issued by the Board of Works, and examines the unemployment figures, especially along the western seaboard, must know that there is a necessity for relieving the congestion which is most dense in these parts. At the same time, I think that the Department of Lands, in its hurry to relieve congestion along the western and southern seaboards, overlooks the claim of the small holders in my constituency. I have here an abstract from the Iris Oifigiúil of November 22nd, 1935, and it deals with the estate of Francis Garvey in the County Westmeath. This is an estate which is not an isolated one. There are many such estates in the two counties. When I represented County Longford there were many such estates there also. We had 12 tenants on this estate. The largest holding consisted of 36 acres and 8 perches. The standard price was £71 18s. 7d., and the annuity was £3 8s. 4d. Other areas consisted of: (1) 3 acres 1 rood 20 perches; (2) 3 acres 3 roods 16 perches; (3) 4 acres 1 rood 20 perches; (4) 12 acres 1 rood 2 perches; (5) 15 acres 2 roods 4 perches; (6) 6 acres 0 roods 21 perches; (7) 36 acres 0 roods 8 perches; (8) 9 acres 0 roods 6 perches; (9) 5 acres 1 rood 13 perches; (10) 2 acres 2 roods 20 perches; (11) 2 acres 2 roods 10 perches; (12) 2 acres 3 roods 10 perches.

The annuities respectively are: 12/- 8/6, 8/6, £1 6s., 1£ 6s., 11/4, £3 8s. 4d., 11/4, 6/6, 5/8, 5/6, 6/6. These are all residential holdings. There is land in contemplation for division in that district, the Hornidge estate, and my information at present is that these people have not been interviewed at all. In certain cases of previous land division, one case in Drumraney, people like that were passed over, people who were heads of families, men who have to go out on the road and cart, or work with spade and shovel, men who are not in the habit of frequenting public houses, who are not too lazy to work, whom necessity made work all their lives, men who have a cow and pay five or six pounds for the grass of that cow to give milk to their children. We have been constantly making a case for these people. I do not say they have all been passed over, but a number of them have been, and they should get more consideration. I hope the policy of the Land Commission in these particular instances that I have cited, and in similar cases up and down the counties of Meath and Westmeath— and anyone who knows the North end of Meath knows that there have been several cases like that—will be, that when land comes to be divided these people will be looked after. In the case of the division of the Russel estate in Drumraney, I remember going to the houses of heads of families—it is not desirable to mention names in this House, whether for good reasons or bad reasons, and I respect that tradition— men not afraid to work, and they were turned down; and it is for that reason that I got up to make the case for them, and it is because the Hornidge estate is in contemplated division at present that I make the case not only for these particular individuals, who were tenants of that estate, but for persons in similar uneconomic holdings in Meath and Westmeath.

Mr. Hughes

First of all, I wish to comment on the unsatisfactory way in which communications made by Deputies to the Minister's Department are dealt with. We were told by the Minister for Finance here a few months ago of the duties of a Deputy, of the ever-increasing duties and responsibilities that he has, of the amount of work he has got to do on behalf of his constituents, and of the various contracts that he has to make with different Government Departments here on behalf of those constituents. But my experience, and the experience of other Deputies as well, has been that, so far as the Minister's Department is concerned, it is the most unsatisfactory Department in this State —so far as any communications to them are treated. If you write to the Minister's Department on any matter, you get an official acknowledgment and never hear a word afterwards; if you make personal representations you are met by an inquiry clerk and you can never deal directly with the official who is concerned about any matter. This is not at all satisfactory. A Deputy is busy in that respect, and does not want to be going about time and again, visiting a Department trying to get satisfaction, and I think the Minister's Department is easily the most unsatisfactory one in the State.

Now, I know that in dealing with the administration of this Vote we are confined to a very great extent, and the Minister, as a result, is protected, and Deputies are debarred from introducing matters that are very contentious. I do not propose to transgress in that respect, but I would like to say to the Minister that the pressure that is being exercised at the present time in the collection of annuities is paralysing, disabling a number of unfortunate people, and I think more discretion ought to be exercised by the Minister in the matter. I know that representations have been made on behalf of some of these unfortunate people by their parish priests, whose representations one might expect would have a desirable effect, but apparently they have to deal with what appears to be a machine—there is no feeling, no human sympathy in the matter at all. The present unsatisfactory and uneconomic position of agriculture is not taken into account at all in the pressure exercised in the collection of these annuities. This is unwise in the long run from the national point of view, because if you disable an individual farmer and leave him an economic wreck he is going to become a burden on the State, and this is going to multiply. If the Government are responsible for the unsatisfactory economic condition of a number of our people as a result of the rash policy of the economic war, and in other directions as well, it is their responsibility now to exercise a reasonable amount of discretion in pressing for payment of annuities.

Various views have been expressed with regard to the size of the holdings in the division of land. I disagree with the policy of the Land Commission in the method of land division. I think there should be definitely two types of holdings—that of the agricultural labourer and that of the farmer. A man ought to be definitely either one or the other. If you are not going to make him an economic farmer, it means that you will put him in the unsatisfactory position of having to look every other day for a day's work. That is an unsatisfactory position. On the other hand, I admit that, where land is being divided within a reasonable distance of a man's holding, you might give that man two acres to graze a cow which would provide milk for his young family. That would be sound policy. I would not expect that man to till those two acres but simply use them to graze a cow and, perhaps, rear a calf, which he could sell and thereby provide clothes for his family. There ought to be no intermediate-size holdings until you arrive at the holding of 30 or 40 statute acres. From my experience, I do not think that it is humanly possible to live on a holding of less than 30 or 40 acres of reasonably good land. Where a man is given from seven to twelve statute acres, he cannot exist on it and he still has to work with a farmer. He is a terrible nuisance so far as the farmer is concerned, because he is neither a farmer nor a labourer and, in the busiest season, he is expecting to get a loan of horses and is worrying about his own work at home. He is not a satisfactory worker. If people are to be given land, they should be given sufficient to enable them to live. The present policy is making people neither farmers nor labourers.

With regard to the system of inquiry for the purpose of land division, I seriously quarrel with the present arrangement. Nobody can deny that there is a feeling that no man will get land unless he is a member of a Fianna Fáil club. A good deal of political capital is being made out of that. Rightly or wrongly—I am not going into the merits—the feeling is abroad that unless a man has certain political affiliations he will not be considered in connection with land division. That feeling obtains as a result of the present system of land inquiry. An inspector of the Department comes down and goes around quietly, asking one man what he thinks of his neighbour, and, incidentally, creating a certain amount of bitter feeling amongst neighbours because of suspicion that they have given unfavourable information to the inspector. There should be some system of public inquiry. Let the inquiry be made above-board, and let everybody hear what is going on. In that way there will be no suspicion and no doubtful circumstances. The sooner a system of public inquiry is instituted, the better.

With regard to bringing migrants from the West into the counties of Meath and North Kildare—portion of my constituency—I think that that policy is very unfair and unjust, and that if local claims continue to be ignored it will stir up a great deal of trouble. Farms are being taken for migrants in Meath, North Kildare and Westmeath, and the claims of small uneconomic holders, who have been looking across at these broad acres for years and whose ancestors may have been reared on the estate which is being divided, are ignored. In the near future that is going to make for serious trouble. The people are determined to oppose that system, and I have every sympathy with them. I have no objection whatever to trying to solve the problem of congestion by bringing people to Meath, Westmeath, and even North Kildare, but I do submit that it is only fair that the claims of uneconomic holders in the area should be closely examined by the Minister's Department instead of being ignored as they are at present.

Reference has been made to security of tenure. I know that I am debarred from discussing that question insofar as I cannot advocate any change in the law. But I do definitely complain about the compensation paid for land acquired by the Land Commission for distribution. That is the root cause of the whole trouble regarding collateral security for advances by the banks to farmers. If the Land Commission were paying just and reasonable compensation mortagagees would get their claims settled. The present policy practically amounts to confiscation by the State. The banks are fighting shy of advancing any loans on land, and that, apart from the question of security of tenure, is the root cause of all this trouble. Land has always been a medium for securing loans. It is really the only medium which the agricultural community have for that purpose. Apart from the question of security of tenure, the nonrecognition by the Minister's Department of the right to fair and just compensation for land acquired is the root cause of this problem. The man whose holding is about to be acquired by the Department is entitled at least to fair compensation, based on market value, and it is well known that the compensation at present being paid is neither just nor fair.

Captain Giles

In my county the activities of this Department are of very considerable concern to the people, because we have migration there from the West. I heard the Minister state that he proposes to bring in a new Land Bill. That is one of the gravest items of news we got during the past few years. We have Land Bills enough. At present, land is no security for anything. If you go into a bank and tell them you have a farm, they will tell you to get out. If the Minister brings in another Land Bill, what will they do?

An Ceann Comhairle

There is a new Land Bill on the Order Paper—Item 11 —and it cannot be discussed at this stage.

Captain Giles

Last year I made a strong complaint about the acquisition of a farm in Meath. The farm belonged to a widow living near Dunboyne and, when it was acquired, she got no compensation, so that the transaction amounted to confiscation. I thought that the Minister, after hearing the facts, would investigate the case and see if he could right matters to some extent. I knew that he could not right it to the extent he should, but I find he has done absolutely nothing.

He also more or less gave me his word that the nephew of this lady, who was a married man, with no land, and who is anxiously seeking land, would get consideration. That nephew is living there still, with no home of his own, and the Department has absolutely ignored him, while all types of men in the locality, some with not a bob in their pockets, men who did not apply for land, but whose local club applied for them, have got land. I think that is one of the greatest injustices in my county, and I ask the Minister to take up this case and see that justice is done. It may be said that this lady has no children, but I want him to realise that she has dozens of nephews and nieces in bad circumstances, and that she herself is in bad circumstances. The Minister told us that this land was of no value and that she was losing money on it, but what did the income-tax authorities do a few months later? They assessed her for income-tax and took income-tax from her. She was made to pay through the nose, although the Minister had publicly stated that the land was no good. There two Departments are at variance and I should like to see them settle their differences.

The migration problem in Meath is a grave problem because, whether the Minister likes it or not, we in County Meath are going to resist it, and to resist it strongly. I do not say that we are going to use the gun, or anything like that, but we are going to use certain methods because it is not fair that our farmers' sons should be passed over and should have to go to England to earn a living, while an invasion of County Meath from the West of Ireland is taking place. I would not mind this migration if the problems in the county were settled first, but the Minister must realise that, in North Meath and South Meath, we have vast areas of congestion where small uneconomic farmers are rearing families for export, year after year. Is it fair that that export trade should go on while we have to relieve the congestion of the West? I think it is most unfair. If the Minister has to migrate certain people to County Meath, he ought to approach the problem from a different angle. He is going about it in the wrong way and carrying out one of the most costly schemes he could carry out. He is taking men from the West of Ireland, who were living in a more or less derelict condition, and giving them farms and nice new houses, together with horses, ploughs, cows, sows, ducks, hens and the devil knows what. They are getting everything that a house needs. I think that is a foolish method because these people, when they come to Meath—they are decent people undoubtedly and they are Irish like the rest of us—are like ducks out of water. They do not know what to do with the strong, rich land in County Meath which is very hard to cultivate. It is useless to put a small farmer on rich fertile land.

The policy of the past Government has been criticised, but I support that policy—the policy of the late Mr. Paddy Hogan, who tried to relieve congestion in the West by taking 600 acres from the large landowner or rancher in the West and dividing them amongst these people. He then brought that rancher, who had finances and resources, into County Meath and gave him 150 acres in Meath for the 600 acres taken from him. We had no objection to that because we know that congestion must be relieved wherever it exists. These men were assets to the State, although I agree that some were brought up who were useless and who gave very little employment. The State, however, can see to it that any man who gets 100 acres of land will give decent employment. There is no hope of relieving congestion except by dividing the land of a big landowner and putting him on a holding in Westmeath or in Meath. This system of bringing up these types of men at present must stop because it is too costly. It costs £1,000 or £2,000 to place one of these families on this land, and we have farmers' sons, who do not want a bob from the State and who, if they got a parcel of land, would work it at their own expense, are passed over. If this money was spent on establishing industries in the West of Ireland a great deal of congestion would be relieved there. I ask the Minister to consider that point because it is unfair that buses and trains should be bringing all types of horses, ploughs and sows on to these holdings, while our farmers' sons are passed by and are compelled to go to England for a living.

The most shabby treatment has been meted out to the unfortunate herd of one of those large estates. He does not get the same facilities as the migrants, and surely he is entitled to the same facilities. Why is there a differentiation? I know an estate in the county on which migrants were planted a few months ago. I knew the herd and I knew his circumstances. He is a decent, hard-working man, and he lost his living. He was given an uneconomic farm of 22 statute acres, but he was given nothing more. He was left without a penny in his pocket and with his job gone. All he could do was to try to set the land to the first man who came along, to pay his rent and rates, while the migrant got a horse, a plough, a cow, new gates, with a sand-and-gravel path to his hall-door, the yard prepared at the back, and five or six tons of fuel neatly stacked up for the coming year. That herd must fail because he has no earthly hope of getting a "bob" from anybody, except by setting his land. Surely one individual should get the same treatment as another. It is nothing less than a shame. I do not blame the Minister as much as I blame the Fianna Fáil Deputies in my county. The Minister came down to the county last year when he heard rumours of certain threats. He came down with his chest out and his head up, and he met the people in a central town in the county. He told them what he thought of them and he told the Deputies what he thought of them. They took it lying down; they sulked and never since opened their mouths. The Minister said: "I will ram the migrants in there, whether you like it or not," and there was not a word said.

You must, however, realise that you have gone far enough and that we will not let you go any further. Meath was the county of the ranchers, but I would ask the Minister to go down to Tipperary, to Galway or to Mayo. There he will find vaster and more fertile ranches than he will find in Meath. Why does he not divide some of the large lands in Roscommon, Mayo or Galway? If he wants to relieve congestion, let him take those lands and leave my county alone. He will live to regret the day, and so will I, because, remember, Meath was the market of the livestock trade of Ireland. It was the market for all Ireland, whether the cattle were bought at Ballinasloe, Athenry, Roscommon or Waterford, because the cattle bought in those places were brought up to Meath for finishing. We were the gateway to the only market we have for the livestock trade, the British market, because we finished the undeveloped store cattle from the West on our lands and exported them to that market. Therefore, I say that it is a crying shame that Ireland's real national asset, the rich lands of County Meath, should be divided up and given out in uneconomic patches to men who, in most cases, do not know how to work them and who, in almost all cases, have not got a "bob" to work on. It is a national shame, and some men must step in and stop it. If the Meath lands are going to be divided, as they are being divided at present, where are all the cattle from the great fairs and markets of the West going to come?

I say it is unfair to our country, because, after all, the only hope we have of holding our heads in the air at all is by being able to complete and finish our products in this country and to compete in the world's market. We cannot do that by dividing all our land into small, uneconomic ranches or farms. Therefore, I say to the Minister, as far as my county is concerned, "Halt, and do not put your new Land Bill into operation until you see where you stand." There are tens of thousands of acres of land in my county at the present moment in the Minister's hands ready for division, and I would ask him, before that land is divided, to think twice. If it has to be divided at least let it be divided into economic parcels. There has not been one economic farm given in my county in the last eight years. The farms that were given were 22, 25 and 28 statute acres. To give a farm of that kind to a man who has not a shilling in his pocket is nothing more than destroying the riches of our country. If you have to divide these farms, then I say, in God's name, divide them into 30, 50, and 60 Irish acre farms. If you do that, and if you give them to a man who will work them, he will be able to give employment. At the present moment the people have to fly to Dublin, England, and anywhere they can go to get employment. That flight never took place in the old days, even in the worst British times. Instead of flying from the lands of Meath, the people from the West of Ireland came to Meath for the harvest and hay seasons and got a good return.

The Minister for Lands and the Government are carrying on a policy which, I believe, in their hearts they know well is wrong, but of course politically it is very sound, because it means they have land for division. "The land for the people, and the bullock for the road" was always the policy of the Fianna Fáil Party. It was shouted from the cross-roads and in every town and village in Ireland. My cry is, "The people and the bullock to live side by side." I do not want to see the bullocks put out on the road and the people on the land. I want them to stand side by side because they are Ireland's national wealth. The Minister should realise that, and should not be led into tomfoolery by the shouts and cries of people who cry for land. Most of them never did a day's work in their lives. I want to see the land given to the type of people who were always honourable and who always worked hard. At the present moment 50 per cent. of the people who got land in Meath are failures, were failures, and will be failures, and it will be the duty of the Minister eventually to evict them. I say God forbid that he should have to do that, because we heard enough about evictions in the past.

If these people are unable to make their way, it is unfair that they should have to be thrown out on the road again, because it is the action of the Minister that is responsible for their position, and he did it with his eyes open. It may have been that he did it at the dictation of local bullies, but I think it is a disgrace that the land is being given to a certain type of people. Some of them are men whom I knew in the past. Because they were able to join clubs and shout the old slogan, "On to the Republic. The bullock for the road," they got their land. They are there to-day, ready for eviction again, and they do not care whether they are evicted or not, because they had nothing when they started, and do not mind being in the same position again.

Why is it that the decent farmers' sons with £50, £100 or £150, are being passed over? Why is it that so many farmers are not getting parcels of land to make their farms economic? I say to the Minister that he should clear up the position in my county. If he does not, then some Government or some Minister coming after him will have to do it. I say that the only county in Ireland worth preserving has been destroyed. It was said that it was the old landlord system that owned Meath. I quite agree that the landlord system operated to a large extent in Meath some years ago. There are in County. Meath to-day men who have 300 or 500 acres of land, and they bought it with hard cash. I knew these men when they had not five acres of land. But they were thrifty, and worked hard and acquired the land. I think it is unfair that the Minister should send down his officers to inspect that land, and, at the whim and cry of a few local bullies, have it divided. The savings of the men who worked hard on this land for years and years are being thrown away, and the land is being given to those who will not work it and who will let it grow to bushes and sedges.

I agree that there are a few men of the old landlord type in my county who are useless, and always were, whose god is gold. Some of them live in my county still, and the Minister is not interfering with them. I would like to know why that is taking place. Their land is lying derelict there, but there is no Land Commission work being carried out on their farms. Some of the decent honest farmers who reared their families on those farms and gave constant employment to ten, 15 or 20 men at Government wage, are having their land taken over. Why should that type of man be scourged and brow-beaten? I say it is time it stopped.

I always advocated land division and always will, but I think, when land is taken over for division, it should be given, in the first instance, to people in the locality who may have uneconomic farms, so as to make their farms economic. You could see what type of farm he has and, if he is going to make good, you should make his farm economic. Nothing less than 40 Irish acres of land is any use. If that were done it would be something worth while.

If the new Land Act is brought in, what will be the position? Inside the next few months you are going to have absolute insecurity. In Meath to-day no farmer that I know is giving any extra employment either in summer or in winter. Not one of them is cleaning drains or cutting fences because of the dread and threat of the Confiscation Bill. That is what is wrong in our county to-day. There is no security on the land. The farmer does not know where he stands. If he gives employment to-day, perhaps to-morrow the land will be taken from him. Until we get the three "F's", Fair rent, Free sale, and Fixture of tenure, this country will never prosper. The whole cause of our poverty and destitution here is the plight of the man on the land, the insecurity of the land and the indifference of a Government that will pass Land Act after Land Act, not realising that every Act passed is worse than the previous one. I know that the previous Government, under the late, and great, Mr. Hogan, brought in Land Acts. Some of them were bad and should never have been passed, because when you broke the title to a farm you broke the security. Under the old system, a man could walk into a bank or credit corporation, or any place where money was given out on interest or terms; his word was his bond, and his land was his security. If he goes into a bank to-day, having even 300 acres of land, looking for £200, he will not get it because the bank manager will say that he does not know whether he owns the land or not. You cannot say you own it because the Government have you in the hollow of their hand and can squeeze you dry, Until we have got back the three "F's" Ireland never will arise, and we will be nothing more than a subject people, subject to new landlords who have taken the place of the old ones— the so-called patriotic Irish Government.

It is nothing less than blindness to carry on the present action of this Government. Surely they see that for the last five years our people are flying from the land as they would from famine. Surely they know there is something wrong. We, the plain people, who live on the land, can tell the Government and the Minister what is wrong. The security of the land is gone and the unwillingness of our people to give employment is because they do not know where they stand.

I would ask the Minister, before he proceeds to take over even one more estate in my county, to see that what he has in hand is dealt out in a decent economic way to the right type of people. I am not accusing the Government or the Minister of picking out their own type of people and giving the land to them, but I certainly say that some people have a "pull" in my county. They are the type of people who can be heard shouting, but who never take their coats off to do a day's work. They have their pencils and books, running in and out from club to club saying: "We are the men. Do not mind the Fine Gael fellows. Go to Kelly, Reilly and Boland, and as sure as God is in heaven you will be all right. Throw your half-crown into the club, and you will be all right. If you owe anything in the bank, we will relieve you. You may be derelict to-day but we will leave you wealthy to-morrow." If they are wealthy to-morrow it will be at somebody else's expense. I say that the Irish farmer will live to curse the day this Government came into action. I am sorry to have to speak so strongly, because the Minister is one of the most able and gentle Ministers in the House. I wish to God that instead of having him sitting there it was the Minister for Finance or the Minister for Industry and Commerce, and I would give him a proper dressing.

Mr. McGovern

I put down a Question to-day and I was not satisfied with the reply I got from the Minister. The Question was:—

"To ask the Minister for Lands if he will state whether the Land Commission have acquired an estate from William Cartwright, at Losset, County Cavan, for distribution among the smallholders in the neighbourhood; and if so, when they propose to divide it."

The Minister's reply was as follows:—

"From the particulars furnished, the Land Commission are unable to identify the estate in question. There is no person by the name of William Cartwright as the present or former rated occupier of any lands in the townland of Losset, County Cavan."

Well, Sir, I did not say in Losset, I said at Losset—as a matter of fact in the townland of Bruce, beside Losset. I find it hard to question the sincerity of the Minister's answer, or of the Land Commission's failure to answer my inquiry, or to answer the inquiry of the people concerned in the district, but I am quite prepared to believe the man who told me that there was a representative of the Land Commission in the district, not merely on one occasion but on two different occasions, making inquiries from intending applicants for land on this Cartwright estate. I find it hard to believe that that man was making a misstatement. I believe what he told me was quite correct, and I think the Minister and his Department should not withhold any information that they have. I am told even that the Land Commission have sold this land to an outsider—a man from another county. Is that true or is it not? I have heard other Deputies here complaining about the Land Commission not being satisfactory in giving information to Deputies. This is the first time I have experienced any difficulty in getting any information from them. I should be very much surprised if my informant, who gave me this information a month ago, misrepresented the case. I am quite sure it was not an invention on his part. I do not know how the people of that district could be mistaken in thinking that an inspector of the Land Commission came down there, and made inquiries from intending applicants for portion of this estate. If this land has been inspected I do not see how the Land Commission could make any mistake in identifying it, because there is hardly another man of the name of Cartwright in the County Cavan. I doubt if there is another estate which has been acquired from a man of that name anywhere, and there certainly is none in the neighbourhood of Losset. I hope the Minister will give some information in this case, because I find it very hard to doubt the man who wrote to me on one occasion, and spoke to me on another occasion about this matter. There have been meetings of the people of the district who are anxious to get portion of that land. The reason they are so anxious about it is that they heard this land was being sold to an outsider, instead of being distributed to the people of the district.

With regard to another estate in East Cavan, the Marquis Estate at Virginia, I hope the Minister will not deny that that land was taken over and divided. There have been some complaints also with regard to the way in which that land was divided. I do not pretend to believe everybody who alleges that he has a grievance. I do not accept offhand everything I am told. I went to the trouble of making inquiries from people who I knew were above suspicion, people who had no grievance and upon whose word I could rely. I was told that the Land Commission generally did fairly well; that there was not much wrong. However, it was pointed out that in the case of one particular man who got a farm there could be no explanation as to why he got it. He already had three farms of land. His valuation was considerably over £20, I believe, although the people of the district were told by the Commissioners that they need not apply if their valuation was over £17.

Mr. Boland

Deputy Smith came down there and he called all intending applicants and held himself out as a man vested with authority, by the Minister, of course. He did not say so, I am sure, but he gave that impression and I think it very hard to believe that Deputy Smith would hold himself out as a man vested with authority unless he had that authority. Perhaps the Minister will tell us whether he had more authority than any other Deputy. He certainly created the impression that he had authority, and the impression gained ground, whether it was right or wrong. That should not be the case. This House is voting money and it is the job of the Land Commission to distribute the land and to do so in the interests of the State. It is the taxpayers' money that is being spent and if land is acquired by this body it should be a non-political body and Deputies should have nothing to do with it only to investigate complaints made to them and make inquiries. Very often groundless complaints are brought forward.

I do not see why Deputies should interfere in the affairs of the Land Commission, or hold themselves out as the people who can give the land. I live within a few miles of this place, and I never called a meeting or stated that I would see that these people would get the land and that everything would be planned all right. Neither did the other two Deputies, who live a few miles away. But the Deputy who lives 40 miles away comes along and calls this meeting, and holds himself out as man vested with special authority. That is very strange, and it requires some explanation. I do not pretend that Deputy Smith is free from faults any more than myself, but I do not believe he would hold himself out as vested with authority if the Minister had not given it to him. What right had the Minister to give that authority to anybody?

The Land Commission should deal with these things, and deal with them above board, in a manner that would be above criticism. If they did, then we could respect the Land Commission and the Department over which the Minister presides. But so long as this impression of political manoeuvring and political favouritism gets abroad, we cannot have respect for any Department of Government. I hope the Minister will explain these few points that I have raised, and that the good credit that the Land Commission and his Department held in the past will be continued in the future.

I do not propose to say any more upon this matter. In conclusion, I ask the Minister to be more careful about giving reasonable information to Deputies, even though they are in the Opposition, and to see that the Land Commission will carry out its duties, and not allow them to be carried out through the Fianna Fáil clubs or certain Deputies in this House.

Mr. J.P. Kelly

In the course of this debate an appeal was made to the Minister to bring the bigger type of landholder from western districts up to County Meath. That appeal was made by Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney, who is a member of the Opposition. occupies the Front Bench there, and possibly speaks their mind. That shows no change from the old principle that they put into operation when they were in power. We, in Fianna Fáil, must definitely object to that principle being reintroduced. It has been advanced that those large holders, when they give up land in the West and come to Meath, will be able to purchase the store cattle from the small-holders in the West, that they will continue to do it as they are doing it now. Meath has been referred to as a cattle-raising county. We are to infer from that that it is incapable of producing cereals. For very many years Meath has been one of the best tillage counties in Ireland. A change was effected when the grazier system was introduced, when the smallholders on the good lands were evicted and their holdings put into ranches. Then the propaganda was issued by the large landholders that Meath was not capable of growing anything but grass, and that we should continue to send our fat cattle across to the English market when they would be fed on the grass only.

The smallholders in County Meath can fatten their cattle by feeding them with the produce of their own farms. They can have them on grass in the summer time, and fatten them in the winter time in the stalls. That is the system we want to have operating in County Meath. We do not desire to go back to the ranching system. Statements have been made here this evening to the effect that it would be good for County Meath that we should go back to that position. We had experience, when Fine Gael was in power, of what these large holders could do. Many of them were taken up to Meath; they were given large holdings, and the majority of them let them go into ranches, did not live on them, did not give any employment, except perhaps to one man, and we have them to-day in the same position. We are looking to the Minister and the Land Commission to take these large holdings over again, and give them to the men who will work them. We do not want to have any more of that in Meath. We want to see that the County Meath will be taking its proper place in the new agricultural economy. It can certainly be said with truth that the type of migrants who have been brought up by the Minister and the Land Commission are a far better type, both from the farming point of view and the national point of view, than the men who were brought up by Fine Gael.

Capt. Giles

It was more costly.

Mr. J.P. Kelly

They have been given lands in County Meath, and they have not been placed on those lands over the heads of the uneconomic holders, as has been stated here this evening. All the uneconomic holders have been attended to in the districts where these lands have been divided.

We, in Meath, have a guarantee from the Land Commission that all eligible local applicants will be provided with land on all estates that are being divided, and that where it is found that there are not sufficient eligible local applicants for those lands, migrants will be brought in. I do not think that anyone in Meath has any objection to bringing migrants into areas where land is available. Local eligible applicants consist of employees who lose their positions as the result of the taking over of the lands, uneconomic holders, cottagers and landless men, and pre-Truce Volunteers get a preference in each category. That is the position as far as Meath is concerned. It has been stated that uneconomic holders have been completely ignored. As far as that statement refers to County Meath, it is not correct.

I should like to direct the Minister's attention to one point, namely, that when it is found necessary to introduce migrants into a district, very special attention should be paid to the workers in that district, otherwise a new problem may arise for solution. People who hitherto got work upon estates, or in the vicinity of those estates, might find, when the estates were divided, that they could not obtain employment such as was previously open to them. I do know that upon many estates the needs of the workers have been attended to, but in a few cases where these workers had not sufficient means they did not get land sufficient at least to provide themselves and their families with the necessaries of life. I do think it is imperative, for the efficient working of schemes of land division, that ample provision should be made for such cases, as these people will find it extremely difficult to secure employment within a reasonable distance of their holdings. I do know that the Minister is anxious that all those people should be provided for. I am satisfied that the Minister has found it necessary to increase the size of the holdings. We have heard a good deal about small holdings here this evening. A holding, of course, is entirely economic when it provides for the tenant and his family. We wish to see holdings of a size sufficient to enable the system of mixed-farming, which we have in mind, to be operated successfully. We wish to have a holding sufficiently large as to guarantee to the occupant a sufficient return for the work he puts into the holding and to supply him with all his needs.

A point made here this evening is that the Fianna Fáil clubs have been rather active in bringing cases before the Land Commission. It has been suggested that the Land Commission have been influenced to an unusual extent by the secretaries of clubs and by the Deputies of the Fianna Fáil Party. I want to state publicly that, as far as Fianna Fáil clubs, the secretaries of such clubs and Deputies of the Party are concerned, we only state the cases, the circumstances and the needs of our members. In doing that, if we do it very forcibly, and if we are able to place our cases in a better light before the Land Commission than the Deputies and clubs of the Fine Gael Party, that is not our fault. Even if our activity is resented, I can assure the members of the Opposition that it will continue until we have placed the cases of all our members clearly before the Land Commission with the object of getting redress for their grievances. Of course Fine Gael may feel rather sore over this activity. They complain now that the people who are being brought in from the West have been brought in over the heads of our uneconomic holders. I want to say that people who were brought in heretofore were brought in over the heads of the uneconomic land holders, landless men and cottagers, and we did not hear any of those cries raised at that time.

It has also been suggested here that people who are getting land have not the means to work that land and that it is not likely that they will work the land. I have taken an interest in this matter as far as County Meath is concerned and I do say that there has been considerable exaggeration in the statements made. People who got houses and holdings, and did not occupy the houses, possibly for a year in some instances, nevertheless were allowing the houses, which were new, to dry out. I find that generally after a period of a year or so, all these houses have been occupied. There may be a few cases in County Meath in which the houses have not been occupied up to the moment. I say that landless men who have got land in Meath have shown an aptitude for working the land on the latest accepted economic lines. They certainly should not be condemned as a body if one or two did not make good use of the land within a reasonable time. It has been alleged that some of them have let their land on the 11 months system. From inquiries I have made, I find that that has been so in a few cases but here again the statement is made that the land was let merely for the accommodation of neighbours who had not already got sufficient land. I do want to say as a warning to those people that, after making all reasonable allowances, we cannot stand for unoccupied holdings or for letting on the 11 months system. Our aim has been to have that system of mixed-farming of which I spoke and we seek the destruction of the 11 months system in our county. It would be unfair to the Land Commission if these holdings were not occupied and it certainly would not show much appreciation of the work that has been carried out by the present Government.

There is just one other point to which I wish to refer. It has been suggested that cottage holders should not get five acres of land, as that would merely mean that they are neither economic holders nor workers. I submit that although a cottage holder, who gets five acres of land may not be an economic holder, nevertheless, he is still a worker and is as much a worker as when he had but one acre of land. He is just in the position that he will have grass for his cow. I believe it is all-important that in the country districts workers should have grass for their cows. Where land has been divided and where cows have been grazed upon that land, it is absolutely essential that a certain provision should be made at least by giving five acres to these people who have cows. The provision of milk for the growing generation should be a matter of concern for the Minister and the Land Commission. I hope the Minister will not take any notice of the appeals made to him from the Opposition Benches this evening.

I am glad to hear the Minister state that 75 per cent. of the land annuities were collected in the November and December gale. Deputy McMenamin put the position correctly when he said that the result of the settlement of the economic war was reflecting itself already in the collection of the land annuities. I hope that that position will be still further improved, and that when the Land Commission Estimate comes on again the Minister will be able to say that, in spite of the terrible propaganda against the payment of annuities, 100 per cent. of the annuities has been collected. I make a last appeal to the Minister in regard to County Meath, that he should carry on the system of land division there so that we can look forward during the coming year to an acceleration of the speed with which the Land Commission is carrying on. I am not allowed to refer to the new Land Act, but we will have an opportunity later of discussing that. I do look forward, however, to a speeding up of the division of estates until all the available land in our county is divided. That county has been the fattening land for the British market long enough with merely live stock grazing on the ranches. The result was terrible unemployment. Great Britain established that system through the evictions carried out. We do look forward within the next five years at least to a completion of the work the Minister is in charge of.

Mr. Cosgrave

The Minister in his reply last year to some points I raised was not particularly illuminative in his remarks. I raised, first of all, the question of a Minister and Parliamentary Secretary in this Department. The Minister is aware of the fact that the Land Act of 1933 made some difference in the duties of the Minister in the work of the Land Commission generally. Land Commissioners are now responsible for what was formerly the responsibility of the Minister. They are responsible for the selection of land to be acquired, and of the persons to whom these lands are to be given. While we all subscribe to the Standing Order that we must not advocate new legislation on an Estimate, we are entitled to know whether or not the administration of the Land Commission is being carried out in accordance with law, or whether it is being subject to Ministerial influence in its administration. If one were to pay any attention to a number of meetings held by the Minister's Party throughout the country, one would think that he was the person who was distributing the land, selecting the persons, and selecting the lands to be distributed.

That particular Act of 1933 also altered the law as regards the collection of annuities. Might we ask the Minister has he examined what the effect of that alteration in administration has been; whether or not, in those cases where the good offices of the sheriff have been employed and seizures have taken place from farmers, they have got the highest price for the stock which has been seized? It is not sufficient to tell us that the law is being administered, that one Department carries out the law, and that another Department carries out the law, if as a result of all that a man whose cow is seized gets 20/- for it when it is worth, say, £15. There is something wrong either with the administration or with the law if that happens. Quite a number of seizures have taken place all over the country, and the Minister and the Ministry are responsible to this House and the country for the administration of the law. If by reason of the administration of the letter of the law citizens are being subjected to enormous losses, either the law must be changed or the Ministry should be changed. It is not just, and it is a mockery to suggest that we have in this country what is described as a Christian Constitution if those enormities are being committed under it.

Only quite recently a case came before the courts in which one of those seizures took place on the part of a finance institution in this country. The normal law would have been that that finance institution would have got possession of the land, but the court refused it. Why? Because there is a higher law than the law of the land— natural justice. In this particular case a man's property to the value of approximately £500 was seized. He informed the persons who were going to seize it that by reason of its seizure not more than £50, £70, or £100 would be obtained for it, and that happened. These facts were brought before a High Court judge and he did not administer the strict letter of the law with regard to that. The Land Commission is not above the law of natural justice any more than anybody else. I should like to know from the Minister whether, in the course of the administration of his Department, his attention has been directed to these cases; whether, where injustices have been perpetrated upon people, it is proposed to afford them compensation; whether the law is a just law and has been justly administered; and what generally he intends to do about these cases.

In the case of a farmer, no matter what his standing throughout the country, if a couple of hundred pounds' worth of property is seized and taken away from him, and if his indebtedness to the Land Commission or the bank was only £20 or £30, what hope is there of rehabilitating that man, or giving him an oppor tunity of putting the land into productive capacity? It is not for the mere purpose of scoring on a personal question that I asked last year if there was sufficient work for two Ministers. There was a Minister and a Parliamentary Secretary for many years in charge of the Land Commission. The work in that particular Department is not now what it was then. The Minister will find out, if he looks up the matter, that the onerous duties in connection with administration of what is called the Hogan Act, and the necessity for bringing land purchase generally to a speedy conclusion occupied a very considerable portion of the Parliamentary Secretary's time from 1923 to 1931. That work is finished. The Minister might well devote time—and we would have no objection whatever to the Parliamentary Secretary or an additional Parliamentary Secretary, if necessary—to remedying the injustice that has taken place during the last few years.

I should like to know, in connection with the cost of collection of the annuities, how these costs in the sum total have affected Land Commission annuities throughout the country. It is no use to tell us that the sheriff merely charges 5/-, 7/6, 10/- or £1, as the case may be, as distinct from solicitor's costs which may have been incurred, if the bulk sum paid by annuitants far exceeds what they paid formerly. I should like the Minister to give the House an assurance, in connection with the administration of the Land Commission, that the law is being carried out with regard to the selection of lands for acquisition, and also as to the selection of individuals to get them, or if he would tell the House whether political influence carries weight with regard to these matters.

Last year a case was raised here in the Dáil in connection with the acquisition of one farm of 205 acres in County Meath. It was referred to again this evening by Deputy Giles. The Minister explained, in the course of the defence last year, that the land had not been worked, that it had not been manured, that the ditches had not been cleaned, and that generally the holding was no advantage whatever to the person in occupation of it. The Minister was informed in the course of the case that probate duty was paid on that farm by this lady amounting to £3,500, that she had an offer of £3,000 for it in 1925 and refused it, and that her husband paid £1,600 in 1914.

The Minister will recollect that the Act of 1933 halved the annuities. This particular farm was subject to a fee farm grant, and the lady applied to the Land Commission to give her the advantage of that particular Act. This is part of the case that the Minister did not refer to. When she made the application, the Land Commission inspected the land and, according to the Minister, stated that it had not been farmed in accordance with up-to-date methods of husbandry, or whatever formula the Land Commission employs with regard to that question. What are the facts? This particular farm was subject to a fee farm rent of £150. It has since been acquired and distributed, but the Minister did not tell the House what rental is now charged to the person who has got the land. Is it much in excess of £90? She paid £150. What was the lady's case? Her case was that she was entitled to get this land purchased under the land purchase annuities.

Mr. Boland

I do not wish to interrupt the Deputy, but it might help him if I pointed out that the lady applied under Section 44 of the Act of 1931, which was passed by the Deputy's Government, and, as laid down by that section, she was refused on account of the land not being worked in accordance with proper methods of husbandry. I want the Deputy to be clear that that was done under Section 44 of the Act of 1931.

Mr. Cosgrave

It could or could not be put into operation as the Land Commission wished.

Mr. Boland

She applied.

Mr. Cosgrave

I know. I am assuming there is such a person, and if there was a Land Commission annuity of £150 in 1932, in 1934 that Land Commission annuity was £75. The Minister will admit that. Everyone knows that fee farm grants did not come under the Land Acts, unless under the Act of 1933 or 1931, or some other Act. If the Minister says that farming was a business proposition during the years from 1932 to 1936 he is an optimist. It will not appear to have been profitable if one examines the figures of the receipts for agricultural produce exported, deducting from them the cost of imports of agricultural products. They were given in the House a short time ago. The average sum realised by farmers here was £50 for 1931, and the average sum for the six succeeding years, since the Minister's Party took office, was £26. I wonder if proper methods of husbandry can be used when one has not got a price for the products of the land. Everyone who has any connection with land knows that for grazing the losses have been far greater than in the case of ordinary mixed farming.

I am not mentioning that as an argument, but the Minister's contention was specially directed to this, that the Land Commission decision in that particular case was that the landlord was to get 15 years' purchase of £150, although the lands were subsequently let at a smaller price. Who was the benevolent person that distributed the land in that case? Was it the Government or this particular individual? It was this particular individual who had to pay the last penny to the landlord who got 15 years' purchase. What did the tenant get? The tenant got £5 for 205 acres. I put this question to the Minister. Is it justice in the case of land which was not being worked in accordance with up-to-date methods of husbandry, that the last penny or the last pound has to be given to the landlord and that a fraction of a penny is to be given to the tenant? These lands have since been let at a smaller price than that lady was ordered to pay. The Minister was asked last year whether anything was going to be done in connection with this case. No one is seeking to raise this matter for political purposes. There is no politics in it; it is a question of justice. No matter what the law, and no matter how many laws there are, if a citizen of the State is not dealt with fairly, then the Ministry, being in full possession of the facts, must do something to remedy that injustice. In this particular case, to have property worth £3,000 wiped out, and merely to tell us that it was wiped out because of the law, is not a fair nor a just answer.

Another point was raised last year in connection with this Estimate, regarding costs in the provision of holdings. If my recollection is correct the information conveyed to the Banking Commission was that the costs came to £960 each. I put it to the Minister whether it was fair that an expenditure of that sort should be borne by the country. Everybody would wish to see every applicant for land, particularly those who can work it well, in possession of it, but is it within the means of the people of this country to spend £960 in providing a single holding of 20 or 30 acres down the country? It is not done in the case of a resident in a city. There, a man has perhaps a week's lease of his job, and the highest contribution that will be paid towards rehousing him is somewhere in the neighbourhood of £250, whereas in the other case, it amounts to four times that sum. Has the Land Commission during the last 12 months expended such large sums on individual holdings? If it has, then it is inevitable that the Government is going to limit the number of holdings of that character that are going to be created.

Reference was made here a few moments ago by one of the Deputies for County Meath to the effect that there has been an extension of tillage in that area. The only extension in that particular county is in wheat, and goodness knows, there again, the cost to the ordinary citizen of this State is so great that nobody can make out what it is. If that is the only extension at that price, then an extension of tillage to twice what we have at the present moment would be beyond our means. These are times when there are expenses of practically every department of the State arising. It is only fair to a comparatively poor community such as we have in this country to see that full value should be got for the expenditure of public money, and while the Minister may take great credit for certain schemes that have been inaugurated in certain parts of the country, if they are done at a price beyond that which we can pay, then they are going to limit the advantages in other directions, and the costs may be altogether out of proportion to the benefits that are given.

Mr. Corry

I am anxious in the first instance to ask the Minister to speed up the division of estates in my constituency. We have several large holdings there which are an undoubted burden on the people in general, and on the ratepayers in particular. In the case of one holding alone the arrears of rates are £1,816. And appeals have been made to the Minister's Department for the past four or five years to have this holding taken over. It is unfair that the unfortunate small farmers, with 40 and 50 acres back in the hills, should be paying, in addition to their own rates, £700 or £800 for large ranches of that kind. In another case the arrears of rated are £618. As a matter of fact, there are some 2,500 acres in all, and on all of these arrears are due for rates, and I have placed those facts before the Minister. These farms are derelict there, and you have all these arrears of rates, and surely the division of these estates should be speeded up by the Minister's Department.

I was rather surprised at Deputy McGovern's statement here to-night. One would think that Deputy McGovern was a young baby who had just come to the use of reason, instead of being the old hardened sinner that he is. Deputy McGovern told us about Deputies speaking with authority and so on, but when a Deputy is elected for a constituency he is responsible for each portion of that constituency, and his responsibility does not lie within a couple of miles of his own door. The Deputy must be very innocent, or pretend to be very innocent. There is a Deputy in my constituency and he sometimes claims that he is actually Minister for Local Government, and judging by results, he has some claim. At another period he is the Minister for Justice, and at another period he is Minister for something else and, by Jove, he claimed recently that he had some directorship in the Dominican Fathers. Deputy McGovern is very innocent when he comes along with that kind of humbug to us.

I sympathise with Deputy McGovern and Deputy Brasier when I hear their complaints about land being divided, and the use of political influence, and so on. In the old days, if you were a good boy, instead of getting the little 20-acre holding that is spoken of now, if you were a good district justice, let us say, you would get 365 acres of land in addition to the land you had already. At least, that is what a Fine Gael Deputy told us on one occasion here in the House, and it was not contradicted—in Tipperary, too. Those were the good old days, when it was still going nearly on the Cromwell scale.

Deputy Brasier alluded to the Dinan estate and the manner in which it was divided. I feel myself that there was something wrong with the division there, and the manner in which it was carried out, because uneconomic holders on the outskirts of that estate were certainly passed over. The man concerned there was a man who was working on that estate for a long number of years, and I think he was entitled to a holding. I do not think Deputy Brasier or anybody else would object in the case of a man, as Deputy Brasier alleges, who had a small holding when he was a man from whom the land was taken by compulsion by the board of health. I think that an acre of land was sold for the purpose of building houses, and I think that to allege that that argument should be brought against the man in order to keep his holding from being made up into an economic holding, was very unjust, and that it was very unfair for Deputy Brasier to use that description here.

As a matter of fact I have a few Cork boys that I could send up to you.

Captain Giles

You can now get a good glass of poteen that you could never get before.

Mr. Corry

The position is that you have up in the hillsides men who were formerly driven out of these holdings. Most of these people with families of three or four boys and girls live on the hillsides on 25 or 30 acres. They are a good class of people. They are the men who came out to form the columns during the Tan war, and did a man's part in driving the British out of the country. Now when that land is being dividend we are going to see that these men get it. I make no apology for that statement. They are only getting that to which they are entitled. When we hear complaints about the cost of placing men on new holdings we have to make comparisons. Take the condition of affairs as I know it personally in my own district. There you will find holdings on which neither rates nor annuities are paid. They are lying idle and are a burden on the poor unfortunate fellows up in the hillsides who have to make good the unpaid rates and annuities on these idle ranches.

I appeal to the Minister to get to work on these holdings and to see that they are divided and allocated to deserving tenants this year. Should the Minister wish it, I can get a list of the arrears in each of these holdings sent to him by the secretary of the county council. For the last four or five years I have been making appeals to the Land Commission to have these derelict holdings taken over. The unfortunate part of it is that when they are taken over the county council will be able to recover only two years' rates. The balance, whatever it is, will be a dead loss. The more quickly they are taken over the better it will be for everybody. I urge on the Minister to have these matters looked into and especially to have the case of this particular estate investigated. I think it is a scandal that an individual holding large parcels of land all over the country should also be allowed to hold 40 acres of a non-residential estate. I do not know why when the rest of the estate was taken over, he was allowed to hold this part of it. I ask the Minister to investigate that. In conclusion I would say that I have found the officials of the Land Commission always fair and courteous, and prepared to listen to anybody who came to them with a fair case. They are prepared to look into both sides of the question. Even where a request is refused one finds in the end that perhaps the best thing was done. For my part I have no complaints whatever to make against the officials of the Land Commission.

Colonel Ryan

Except that the Judicial Commissioner was dismissed.

Mr. Nally

There has been a great deal of alarm about the migration of congests from the West of Ireland. But the fact is that during the past seven years of Fianna Fáil administration only an average of seven congests have been migrated each year. Before the Minister and his Party came into office better progress had been made but from the talk one hears one would imagine that there were no migrants planted on the lands of the Midlands before the advent of Fianna Fáil. It cost about £950 for each migrant in the case of the few families the Land Commission migrated from the Gaeltacht to Meath. As a matter of fact, if the Land Commission took over the untenanted lands in South Mayo three-fourths of the congestion that exists in that county would be relieved at very little cost. I would urge on the Minister to migrate or to advise the Land Commission to migrate a whole lot more of these people. He can do that if he acquires all the untenanted land in South Mayo.

I gave the Minister a list of a few estates of which I have knowledge and asked him to have these estates taken over as quickly as possible. There is the estate of Lord Oranmore and Browne at Castlemagarrett which contains over 2,000 acres. This land has been let in grazing for the past 20 years. Around this estate are the parishes of Crossboyne, Ballindine and Claremorris, where there are over 150 tenants whose poor law valuations are under £5 each. That is an estate that the Land Commission should acquire and divide as quickly as possible. Representations have been sent up by local bodies during the past nine or ten years to acquire these estates for the relief of the acute congestion that exists in that area.

In the townland of Kilscoghagh there are ten tenants whose valuations are under £3. Nothing is being done for them, although in 1924 a farm containing 400 acres was taken over in that neighbourhood by the Land Commission. Now, that farm has since been let in grazing and is still in the hands of that grazier. Why does not the Land Commission divide that farm? During last winter a police hut had to be erected on that farm, in order to look after the cattle belonging to the man who grazes it. In various other parts of South Mayo there is also untenanted land. The Land Commission should acquire all the untenanted land in the parishes of Knock, Aghamore, Ballyhaunis, Bekan, Kiloine, Crossboyne and Kilcommon. I understand that the owners of some of these holdings are always in America.

In another of those untenanted lands a police hut had also to be erected to protect the owners of the farm from having cattle trespassing on these lands. In other words, the owners of the farm are using the police to mind their land and their chattels. I would like to know what is behind the whole thing. The Land Commission is dealing with this matter in certain parts of the country is a most unsatisfactory way. In Kiloine the Land Commission have thousands of acres of land on their hands for quite a number of years. It is still in their hands, and they refuse to divide it. Why I do not know. I am aware that memorials and petitions have been sent up time and again to the Land Commission. In Ranahar, near Claremorris, there are two or three holdings in the hands of the Land Commission for the last 20 years, and no division has as yet been made. Yet there are large numbers of tenants in the neighbourhood of these lands with a valuation under £5 a year. Why these lands are not used for the relief of congestion is a thing I cannot understand.

There is also a complaint I wish to make to the Minister with regard to the bog roads which the Land Commission should have repaired. About three or four years ago the Land Commission spent £1,700 in making a road as far as a certain bog, but the moment they came to the bog they did not go any further and would not make a road right through the bog. The result of that was that about 30 people have to remove the turf out of that bog on their backs every summer, and last year's turf is there still and they cannot do anything with it. I would ask the Minister to look into that question and see if there is any possibility of getting something done.

I think that the Minister should also get the Land Commission to furnish a return of all the persons who got holdings of land since Fianna Fáil came into power and who let the land for grazing. I know that quite a number of tenants who got land from the Land Commission never went into the houses but let the land in grazing, and I do not think that those people should be allowed to retain that land.

In one of the parishes where some of the land was to be divided within the last two years, the Land Commission acted in a most unsatisfactory manner because they gave land to a doctor and to a teacher. There is any amount of land in South Mayo—quite enough for at least three-quarters of the congested persons in that area, if the Land Commission would only acquire it under the powers they have in the 1923 Land Act.

With regard to the question of annuities, the people of Mayo have paid their rents and rates promptly, as well as they possibly could, and there is very little due at present. But you all remember the statement made by the Taoiseach in this House that he had settled with England for a sum of £10,000,000 for all the land annuities due—in fact, he said nothing was due in respect of land annuities. Up to the time of the passing of the 1923 Act all the money that was required for the purchase of land was advanced by the British Government. If the people for whom that money was advanced do not owe anything, why should they pay anybody? I think that the movement that the settlement was made for £10,000,000 there should have been a substantial reduction, and the tenant farmers of Ireland should not have been asked to pay even one half of the annuities, but only one-tenth. If the people to whom the money was due do not ask for payment, why should they pay somebody else? The claim has never been assigned, so far as I know.

I would appeal to the Minister to endeavour to get a return of the untenanted lands in the County Mayo from the Land Commission. With regard to the division of the Ardilaun Estate at Ashford, I would like to know how much was paid for that land and what is going to be done with it. Will it be used for afforestation? I understand that half of that land is well wooded, and I do not know if it is intended to plant trees on the other half of it or if it is going to be divided for the relief of congestion. There is no doubt that division would relieve congestion in the parishes of Cong, Ballinrobe, and in other areas around there. I will try to put this in the form of a question, as I expect that the Minister would not have got the records here at the moment.

When the land question was taken over by Deputy Cosgrave about 70 families a year were catered for, but all that has been done since the Fianna Fáil Government came into power is, that 50 families have migrated from the congested districts. And even in regard to those people there have been complaints about their undesirability. Of the 90 families that have been sent up here since 1926 the Fianna Fáil Government has sent 48, which is an average of about seven a year, since they came into power.

Mr. Victory

I am one of those Deputies who welcome the new Land Bill, through I am not falling into the same rut as some of the Deputies here who have described how the land acquisition and land division is going on in their own counties. I rather agree with Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney when he said that it looks as if Deputies are simply bringing forward their complaints to the Land Commission by addressing them all to the Minister in this House. It seems to me at any rate that that is the position. We have heard, too, Deputy McGovern and Deputy Giles alleging bias. I believe that there should be a public inquiry into the whole business and that matters should not be dealt with by some of the back-road methods that I know are being used. I am rather amazed at Deputy Brooke Brasier when he condemns compulsory acquisition. There should be clearer realisation of the conditions in certain parts of the country. Speaking for my own constituency, I know of one place where there are four units adjoining—the average valuation is £4 10s., and there is an average family of six.

This has been declared a congested area; and there has been a reclamation scheme going on there for the last four years. At the same time, it is five years since the English's estate at Tang, Co. Westmeath, was inspected, and it is two years since the land inspector went down there and made his investigations, and yet nothing has been done. It is five years ago since Duff's estate at Tanelick, County Longford, was inspected, and in that case also nothing has been done; and I here now that there are other estates in the same county where similar conditions prevail. In the case of Wilson's estate, I hear that there are rumours that a man who got another holding is now getting Wilson Slater's. If the new Bill is going to remedy that, then it is time that it was passed. It is three years since Regan's estate at Kenagh, County Longford, was taken over, and yet anothing has been done, and it is also three years in the case of Price's estate at Lisryan, County Longford, in which case also there has been nothing done. There is a feeling growing up that, if it were not for the Government something more would have been done, that there is some sinister influence at work in the Land Commission, when about 100 acres in a county can be taken over in two years and not yet be divided. It is for that reason that I welcome the introduction of this Land Bill, and it is for that reason too that I would welcome a public inquiry into the manner in which these various cases are being dealt with, and I think that if there is anything that is not going to go before public investigation this House will not stand behind it. What Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney said is right, and I hope the Minister will make inquiries, when he will find that the statements I have made are true. If he looks into the matter, I am sure the result will be that some work will be done in the next 12 months in that district.

Mr. Fagan

I was rather surprised while listening to Deputy Victory. It is speeches like his which are destroying the value of land. He mentioned one farm I know with a view to getting it divided. I know the Price farm. Mr. Price died seven or eight years ago, leaving a family. One of his children came of age a month ago, and he has to try to work the farm. Mr. Price was not exceptionally well off, and his farm had to be set for five or six years because they could not work it.

Mr. Victory

If that farm is filed for inspection. I want the Land Commission to make their decision known at once. It is not fair to have the matter hanging over for five years.

Mr. Fagan

since the man died some years ago, there should be no decision to be made. If a man dies, is his land to be automatically divided? That is what is ruining the value of land. That is what vexes a man to the heart—to think of what is going to happen to his family if his land is divided when he dies. It is a shame that speeches of that kind should be allowed to pass. Deputy Cosgrave made reference to Mrs. Connolly's case, and the Minister mentioned that the 1931 Act was the cause of that. I hope he will take into consideration the fact that there are numbers of cases such as that of Mrs. Connolly. In the case of fee-farm grants, the landlord gets all and the tenant gets nothing. If that law is not changed, I do not know what is going to happen. I know several fee-farm grantees in that position. The people will not ask to have the land brought under the Land Commission because they are afraid it will be taken from them. I gather from the Minister that he proposes to bring in a new Land Bill. I hope he will put a cluase in that Bill whereby the landlord will not run away with all the advantage and the tenant be denied compensition.

As regards migrants, they are all right and are deserving of land, but the people in the locality should get land before migrants are brought in Migrants have been brought into a district convenient to me. They are all right, but there are plenty of farmers' sons around who would work these farms. In the case of farmers with 30 or 40 acres, there are very often three or four boys on these farms. They may be 20, 30 or 40 years of age, and they may be anxious to get married but they cannot unless they can get land. There is a rumour in Westmeath that nobody but migrants are to be given land. In Westmeath, smallholders within a mile are to get farms. If they are one and a quarter miles aways they will not get land, and no single men will get farms, while small holders from the West are to get land. The people of Westmeath will not stand for that.

One sees young fellows of from 30 to 35 years of age—young fellows whom you would love to look at—who are anxious to get farms. There may be three or four of them in a family. It is not fair to bring people from outside while these boys can get nothing. I ask the Minister to look into that sort of thing and to change the scheme so that, where there are three or four sons in a farmers's family they will be able to get a farm in the vicinity when an estate is being divided.

When bringing in his new Land Bill I hope the Minister will have regard to the price allowed for land, because we know people who are being badly victimised in the last three or four years. I know a few old ladies who live on mortgaged farms and who are looking for home help because they can get nothing off the farms. There is then the custom of inspectors walking farms. An inspectors comes in and, without saying "Yes, aye or no," walks the farm. The farmer may not hear any more about the matter for three or four years. I had a letter the other day from a man with 140 acres. He wanted me to go over to the Land Commission and ascertain if they were going to take up his farm. An inspector walked over his farm, and he got no further notice. There is a bad fence on the far side of the farm, and he wants to know if it is worth his while repairing it. If an inspector walks a farm, the Land Commission should notify the farmer if it is not going to be taken up for the present, because people placed in this position are losing heart and are giving up the improvement of their farms.

I endorse the proposal to give bigger farms when land is being divided. It is only putting people into hardship to give them 20 statute acres. No man can live on 20 acres. Some people ask how they lived on it at other times, but do not want to keep them in that position for all time? A man should have 30 or 35 acres of land in order to rear a family. I do not object to giving three or four acres to cottiers Industrious cottiers should be enabled to keep a cow and a couple of calves, and when land is being divided they should get three or four acres. In that way, they would be enabled to keep a cow, a calf, and perhaps a donkey. They would not have to be looking for con-acre hay, which they cannot get at present on account of the number of estates which have been divided. I would support a scheme whereby cottiers would get four or five acres.

There is another matter of which I have great experience. That is the matter of loans for housing in the Land Commission. It takes two years to know whether you are going to get a loan or not. I am interested in one case and it is two years since the application was made. I went into the office in Hume Street on one occasion and the official there told me that he did not know how many thousands of applications for loans he had. It would take two or three years to clear up that accumulation and it would be four or five years before other people would get loans. There should be some way of expediting this business. A man may get a grant from the Housing Department amounting to, say, £40. He will not start operations until he knows what loan he is going to get from the Land Commission. For that information, he may have to wait five or six years. A valuation of £25 is the limit up to which loans are granted. I think that valuation figure should be extended because men with valuations of from £25 to £50 are being badly vitimised. That man gets nothing from anybody—doctor or anybody else. He has to pay for everything. If a man's valuation is over £25, he will not, save in an exceptional case, get a loan. The Minister should look into that matter because these loans are a very good thing as they help a man to build his house. A number of farmers under £25 valuation have applied to the Housing Department for a grant for reconstruction. I find that the Housing Department have cut down these reconstruction grants. They used to give £40 for practically any work. They are now giving only the value of reconstruction. If you put in for a grant for reconstruction and the reconstruction amounts only to £10, you get a grant of only £10. A farmer who would like to spend £50 or £60 on new work is not now able to do it.

If the Housing Department are going to continue that system of giving the value of the reconstruction, the Land Commission should step in and give a loan to these farmers to help them to reconstruct the houses. It should also be extended to out-offices. It would help these people very much, as they are not able to pay for all the reconstruction themselves.

The dividing of bogs should be speeded up. There are thousands and thousands of acres of bog undivided, while many people have not turf. They cannot cut any turf, and I think the Land Commission should put on a special branch to divide these bogs amongst the people. It would be much better than trying to make turf. Let the people cut the turf in the old way, which, in my opinion, is the best way. With regard to advertisements in newspapers, our county is in a peculiar position. The Department gives the principal local newspaper their advertisements, but, in Westmeath, the principal local newspaper, the paper with the greatest circulation—the Westmeath Independent—is in Athlone in the tail-end of the county. That paper has a big circulation in Roscommon and part of offaly, but it only circulates in Westmeath up as far as Moate. It does not pass Moate, and anybody who is living beyond Moate does not buy it. In the centre of the Midlands we have the Westmeath Examiner, but no Land Commission advertisements are inserted because it has not got a big circulation. There are numerous contractors and small farmers in the county who would put in for contracts if they knew of these advertisements, but they get the Westmeath Examiner, or whichever paper circulates in Mullingar, and they have no opportunity of seeing these advertisements, with the result that all the Land Commission houses being built in Westmeath are being built from Athlone, or some place outside the county. Unless people in the Midlands are well up in the game, they do not see what is happening.

Another matter which is very serious is the question of the arrears of annuities. In my county it is very serious. The Land Commission have met me in respect of many cases I have brought to their notice, but it is not much use in asking people who are three or four years in arrears to pay three half-years in one year. If the Minister could see his way, in the new Land Bill, to extend the number of years for payment—say, put the payments on at the end of the terms and let a man start from now—it would be a great help to these people, because the people who are in arrears now are people who are honestly unable to pay. It is suggested that there was an agitation for the non-payment of these monies, but I say that the farmers will pay the annuities when they are able, and have always been anxious to pay them. I have had a number of cases through my hands, and I find that it is very hard for these people to be paying three half-years in one year, and I ask the Minister to do something to extend the payments. It would entail no loss to the Exchequer, because, so far as I understand, these-annuities are now paid by the rates. If a man buys on 50-years' purchase, and if he owes two years, the period could be made 52 years. That would leave these people who are in a bad way at the moment in a position to start off anew. The people are not anxious to avoid paying, and the people who are able to pay are paying.

Deputy Kelly said that he did not want Meath to be the granary of the British market, but let me tell the Deputy, and let me warn the Land Commission, that any person going into a fair at present misses the Meath buyers. Cattle are bringing good prices, but we hear a number of people coming from fairs saying that the fair was bad. The reason is that the local men are not buying. I remember a time when a man going to a fair might want 50 or 100 cattle, but these people are not there now. It is the dividing of the land that is causing it. Deputy Kelly must remember that, no matter what they try, the cattle raising industry is the only industry. There is a lot of land which it is right should be divided, but the Department should go slow in dividing certain lands, because you will come to a time when the small farmer will have a beast and will be unable to get a price for it, because the local buyer is gradually going out of the fairs. I want to say all I can in favour of all the officials of the Land Commission. Every time I went in there I was met very fairly. They were very courteous, and they tried to do everything possible. I ask the Minister to look into the points I have raised with regard to loans for houses and fee farm grants.

Mr. Keyes

I should like the Minister to give us some idea as to the cause of the very undeniable and regrettable slowing up of land division in County Limerick. In Limerick we have a county with a most unenviable reputation in the matter of land division for many years. We are looked upon, and rightly so, as the most ranch-ridden county in the country, having approximately 40,000 acres of untenanted land. A few years ago, a very welcome land division drive took place in the county, and just sufficient land was divided to whet our appetites for more. The hunger is still unsatisfied, and there is a considerable amount of anxiety as to the reason for the slowing up. It cannot be a question of lack of suitable land for division, because we still have a vast number of these huge ranches, and there can be no question of the suitability of numbers of our people who are anxious for land division and fit to work the land, because, although we have running through the centre of the county, the famous area known as the Golden Vale, we have a very acute problem on the western and eastern sides of the county. There is no necessity to bring migrants into the county, because there are plenty unsatisfied applicants for land in the county. I am sure the Minister has a very good and all-sufficing reason for slowing up land division there, but we should like to hear it, and I hope that whatever obstacles are in the way will be removed and that the laudable work which was set on foot a couple of years ago will be continued. Estates have been carried to a certain degree of preparation, and then work has suddenly stopped. The amount divided in the past year is practically negligible, so that while other Deputies ask the Minister to go slow in the matter of land division, I ask him to go as fast as he can, so far as my county is concerned.

Another matter to which I want to draw the Minister's attention is the breaking of the bank on the Abbey river, just north of the city of Limerick. It breaks aways from the Shannon north of the city, and the bank has been broken for a considerable time, with the result that the agricultural holdings of serveral Land Commission annuitants are flooded. Representations have been made to the Land Commission from various angles with a view to getting the bank repaired, and I am told that the principal reason for the failure of the Land Commission to take responsibility for this repair work is that the land is situated contiguous to or near the brough boundary of the city. I can say that it is not the responsibility of the Limerick Corporation. They have never repaired it. It was repaired previously by the Land Commission—maybe not the same bank, but a portion 100 yards above it. I am not quite sure that this particular portion which is now broken was not repaired by the Land Commission on a previous occasion. It is said that there was some dispute as to the tenants not meeting their responsibility in the matter of repaying the amount advanced for the repairs, but whatever the reason, it is deplorable to see a huge area of land constantly flooded by tides since the bank became broken. It is not improving by being left in its present condition, and some time or another it will have to be repaired, whether by the Land Commission, the Board of Works, or by whomever should carry out the work. I believe the Land Commission are ultimately responsible for the job, and the sooner they face up to it, better it will be and the cheaper the work will be. Annuities are still being collected from the people there, who cannot see their land because it is constantly flooded. To expect the Limerick Corporation to take the responsibility of repairing their bank because it happens to be near their territory is scarcely fair, and as a member of that body I do not think we should be asked to take up and nurse the baby of the Land Commission and to keep it in perpetuity. I trust the Minister will indicate that there has been a change of heart in this matter, and that his Department will see its way to do what is obviously its job. I move to report progress.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again to-morrow.

The Dáil adjourned at 10.30 p.m., until 3 p.m. on Thursday, 27th April.

Dáil Éireann debate - Wednesday, 26 Apr 1939