Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 16 May 1940

Vol. 80 No. 5

Committee on Finance. - Vote 52—Lands (Resumed).

Mr. Corry

When dealing with this Vote last night, I mentioned several estates which, in my opinion, the Land Commission were acting very unwisely in not immediately acquiring. I honestly think that there should be some co-operation between the local authorities and the Land Commission. Where you have large estates lying practically derelict for a number of years, the Land Commission getting no annuities, the ratepayers paying the piper both ways, the small holders of the area having to pay the unpaid rates and annuities on the ranches, there should be some co-operation between the county council or local authority and the Land Commission. The Land Commission have been negotiating for a considerable period in connection with the Rostellan estate which I mentioned last night. Between the Forestry Department and the Department of Lands, that estate must be in hands between eight and ten years. Surely, when there are arrears of rates to the tune of £2,000 on one holding alone, there should be some finality, particularly having regard to the fact that all the arrears the county council can recover are those for two years. In a matter of that description, the Land Commission should speed up matters.

Deputies commented on the manner in which land has been distributed. I have seen land distributed under the British régime, under the last Government and under the present Government. The only complaint I had to make previously was that the land was bought too dear and that the tenants who were getting these small holdings found it impossible to pay the annuities upon them. The manner in which the Land Commission have been operating during the last five or six years in my constituency has given nothing but satisfaction. The manner in which the holdings have been distributed is a credit to the Land Commission. Happy homes have been established on these holdings, the land is being tilled, and the people are, at least, able to pay their way and carry on. Any Department which can bring about results like those deserves credit. I know holdings of 500 acres and 600 acres, which were practically derelict and which gave no employment except to a man to look after a few bullocks, which are now accommodating five or ten families. I cannot understand Deputy Brasier's allusion to these cases. The only complaint he made was in respect of one man who got only five acres. That man happens to be a ganger on the road in permanent employment and he has a cottage and an acre. He would not give up his permanent job as a ganger for the bit of land he would get from the Land Commission. I see no reason why any Deputy should complain. I admit that a portion of land was given to the Forestry Department which would make good tillage land. It is rather a pity that that land was handed over to the Forestry Department. That is on the Dinan estate. The complaints we have heard about the manner in which the land is being worked come from some Deputies who have not given a very good example themselves. When a Deputy stands up to complain about land not being tilled, he should be able to point to his own record in tilling his land. When a Deputy stands up to make a complaint of that description——

An Ceann Comhairle

How any Deputy conducts his business is not a matter for discussion here.

Mr. Corry

Very well. I shall leave it at that, but I would like to see some honesty——

An Ceann Comhairle

The ruling is unqualified.

Mr. Corry

The only complaint I have to make is that the holdings are too small. They are not sufficient to enable a man to rear a family without having to enter into competition with others on the labour market. The minimum amount of land that should be given is sufficient to enable a man to rear a family without the need of going into the labour market in competition with ordinary labour. I saw the migrants' holdings in County Meath. They seem to be well worked and the holders seem to be doing fairly well, but I think they will not succeed, even in County Meath, in supporting their families on their holdings without entering into the labour market. You are only creating another problem when you do not give a man a sufficiently economic holding.

I went rather carefully into Deputy Nally's analysis of the position in County Mayo and it seems to be an extraordinary thing that the Land Commission should be taking migrants from County Mayo, where there are between 5,000 and 10,000 acres already acquired or are in a position to be acquired. The first thing to be done should be to divide up the land in a particular county or district and then, if there are other congests, move them out. I think that charity should begin at home.

Last night Deputy Nally mentioned holdings of 400, 500, 600 and 1,000 acres in different parts of County Mayo. I totted up the figures and I find that there is a total of almost 10,000 acres in the different cases mentioned by Deputy Nally. If there is all that quantity of land in County Mayo still untouched, I think the Land Commission should divide it amongst the County Mayo people who deserve to get land before they move them into other counties. The same should apply to other parts of Éire. I hope that the estates which I have mentioned will be divided this year.

Mr. McGovern

I understand it is the policy of the Land Commission at the present time to mark time and that they are not actually entering into any financial commitments worth while. Whether or not that is a wise policy, I am not prepared to say, but there are certain things that they can do. If they do not want to enter into big financial commitments, they might take over small holdings offered to them in congested districts. I know several small pieces of land that have been offered to them over a number of years, land that is somewhat derelict, but these places would be very useful if they were taken over by the Land Commission and given to small holders living adjacent to them.

I have one case in mind, that of a woman of 80 years of age, an old age pensioner who is living with a friend some 40 miles away from her holding of land. The place is being used as a commons and she is not paying rent or rates on it. She has been asking the Land Commission to take over the land and give her what they wish for it. The people in the area would be glad if the Land Commission took it over and gave it to them. They would be prepared to pay the annuities. In this way the Land Commission would be doing a great service. The latest development is that the old lady was told she was going to be evicted because she had not paid her rent or rates. They can do that if they wish but I think the Land Commission deserve this much credit, that they have decided to consider the matter. I got word from her that they were prepared to consider her case and not carry out the eviction threat that is now hanging over her head.

I suggest they should deal with cases like that in a more considerate manner. She has a definite right there and the land is worth something. They should fix some price on it and pay it to her. That would help her to live. She has only a few years to live and she will never go back to that holding. There are other small holdings that have been offered to the Land Commission, but they do not seem anxious to take over these places. The argument is that it costs too much to take over small pieces. I do not see why it should. It may be a poor piece of land, but it would be useful to someone. There is no land that is not useful for some purpose if the right people get it. The Land Commission would be doing a national service and a good local service if they took the small holdings offered to them—land that is going derelict in some cases—and handed it over to people who would make good use of it.

There are many areas of bog lying idle, while people have to go four or five miles to look for turf and in many cases they cannot get it. In some instances the bog is very convenient and yet the Land Commission will not take it over. It would not involve a very large commitment and if it were distributed amongst deserving people it would be very serviceable.

I was listening to the debate yesterday and I heard numbers of Deputies calling attention to large holdings that have been taken over by the Land Commission and that are still undivided, even though they were acquired eight or ten years ago. Is there any reason why this land should remain on their hands, or why they should set it on the 11 months' system, or let it go derelict?

There should be some co-operation between the Department of Industry and Commerce and the Department of Agriculture and they could use those farms for productive purposes, especially at a time like this, when production is so much needed and when there is a necessity to relieve unemployment. The Department of Agriculture could supply technical advice and direct schemes of production on these lands if there was co-operation with the Land Commission. The Land Commission could supply the land and the Department of Agriculture could give the technical advice necessary, while the Department of Industry and Commerce could supply plenty of men to carry out the work.

Such a procedure would go some length towards meeting the unemployment problem. It would increase production and the land would be turned to good account. Some farms could be used as demonstration farms for the benefit of the surrounding people. It would serve a fourfold purpose if the land in the hands of the Land Commission were used in this way. There seems to be some peculiar idea among the Departments of this State. One would imagine they were all supported by different States, whereas they are all provided for by the same taxpayer. They should not be in watertight compartments.

I heard Deputies yesterday talking about co-operation between the small farmers. It might be a very good thing, but I do not think it would be workable. There should be co-operation between Government Departments and, if they want to encourage co-operation amongst the farmers, they should set the example themselves. The Land Commission could provide the land, the Department of Agriculture could provide the technical advice, and the Department of Industry and Commerce could supply the men to carry out the work. I urge the Minister to give a little consideration to the matter. Something should be done in order to meet the unemployment problem. Nothing is being done at the moment beyond paying out doles, a thing which has disgusted everybody and which every sensible person condemns. It is a system that should never have been operated in this country.

There is no effort to start a scheme to give a good return for the money expended. The Minister should consult his colleague and take over these lands that are lying idle from year to year on the hands of the Land Commission. In the meantime they could be put to profitable account at a time when we are threatened with a shortage of food. It would be an opportune time, in the middle of a great war, to undertake some scheme of this sort. The people would be acquiring some experience when putting the scheme into operation and it might have very beneficial results in the future.

Mr. Beegan

A good deal has been said for and against the policy of migration and, as far as I am concerned, I believe that the policy of migration, to give an unprejudiced view, is a good policy and that the underlying principle of all Land Acts from 1903 to 1939 has been the relief of congestion. If this is not followed up and carried through, I suppose the unfortunate people in many parts of the West of Ireland will have to remain as they are for ever.

On this policy of relieving congestion and migrating people, I should like if there was a more definite policy than there is at the present time. The migration policy, from a political point of view in my particular area, is not a very popular one, because of the fact that there are few congested people and a big number of landless men. If it is the intention of the Land Commission to consider only congests who are local and convenient to where an estate is, or for the purposes of migration, I should like very much that there would be no variation of that policy in any other part of the country. If it is to be confined solely to the relief of congestion and the migration of congests, I would like to hear something definite from the Minister on that. A definite statement on that point from him would save us all a good deal of annoyance, and I am thinking it would save his Department a good deal of trouble. If only congests are to be considered in the West of Ireland and landless men in other parts of Ireland—if there is to be a classification of that kind—I believe that we could get as good a type of allottee from amongst the landless men in the West of Ireland as can be got in Meath, Tipperary and other places where there is a considerable amount of land available. That is a point that I would like to have made clear in this debate.

As regards the acquisition of land, we all had great hopes that, when the 1939 Land Act was put in operation, there would be a great speeding up in acquisition, but other factors have entered into the situation, and the Land Commission, I believe, feel that they have to slow down. One of the reasons advanced is because of the fact that we have to go in for compulsory tillage. If one goes through the country, or travels by train from Galway to Dublin, one can hardly feel that that explanation is at all justified, because one can see huge tracts of land on each side of the railway line, and seemingly there is no more tillage now than there was at any previous time. That being so, I think the acquisition of land should, as far as possible, be proceeded with, whether it be given to migrants or landless men. Anyhow, it would be something that would be a very great help. More employment would be provided, and if the land was divided there would be more tillage than there is at the present time.

As other Deputies have mentioned, we have a number of derelict holdings in many counties, some fairly large in area. They are a drag, of course, on the local rates. In my opinion these are holdings of a type which the Land Commission should give immediate attention to. I do not want to mention any particular estates, but in the County Galway you have a number of estates which have been listed in the Iris Oifigiúil over a number of years, and since the passing of the 1939 Act, the Land Commission, as far as I know, have not taken any steps to acquire them, except in one case where a scheme had already been prepared. I do not think that is a proper attitude to take up. Certainly, there was a great drive made by the Land Commission in 1934 and 1935, when a large amount of land was distributed. But since 1935, as far as I know, and I have a fairly wide experience, the Land Commission have been only marking time, and very little work in the division of land has been done. What the Land Commission officials have been doing in the meantime in regard to other very necessary work it is very hard to understand. The Land Commission gave out holdings during the period when the last Government was in office. They gave them out in 1926, 1927 and 1928, and in the time of the present Government in 1934 and 1935. They have not given out any turbary, although they have turbary acquired. A scheme for the allocation of turbary has not been prepared and put into operation. I think the Land Commission could have been very well employed on that work since 1935 since, presumably, they were not working overtime on the division of land.

In my opinion, it is very important at the present time that the Land Commission should dispose of the bogs they have on hands, and give allotments to people who have not already got turf. The feeling is abroad that supplies of fuel in our towns, as well as in other parts of the country, will be both scarce and dear this year. In many parts of the country there are large areas of bog quite convenient to large towns. It would be useful work if the Land Commission were to acquire those tracts of bog and, in the present emergency, give allotments of them to the people in the towns. Allotments might be given to those who are on the unemployment register, thereby enabling them to get a good and sufficient supply of fuel for themselves. In the execution of that operation, I believe they would have the co-operation of willing workers who would be anxious to form committees in the towns to have a scheme of the kind put into effect. The fact that those unemployed people were given allotments of turbary should not, I believe, deprive them of the right to draw unemployment assistance. It may not be quite in order to advocate this on this particular Estimate, but I am urging that on the Minister because I believe the Land Commission is the body that is best suited to carry out a scheme of that kind.

In connection with the division of bogs, I might also mention that in the past—this is work that might also be undertaken in the future—important works were carried out in the way of making roadways. While that is so, no arrangements were made whereby the tenants who got the turbary would attend to the upkeep of the roads. The result is that every other year petitions are being sent on either to the county council or to the Board of Works asking for grants to have these bog roads brought up to a proper state of repair. I believe that in the future, when turbary is being divided and when improvements of that kind are being carried out, the people getting the allotments of turbary should be compelled, if you like, to maintain the bog road in a proper state of repair and not be looking for State help as they are doing now. If they only contributed 10/- a year additional, and that is not a very large sum it would enable repair work on the roads to be carried out, say, every three or five years. That, I think, would be a good principle to instil. I hope that, when the Land Commission are considering matters of that kind in future, they will try to evolve a scheme on the lines I have indicated.

Colonel Ryan

At the outset I want to say that I am rather at sea as to what the present policy of the Land Commission is on the division of land. In my county the division of land, or talk about it, is causing a lot of trouble and annoyance. There is talk every other day about all the estates that ought to be and should be divided. At the outbreak of the war I think the Minister stated that there was to be a slow down policy with regard to the division of land, except land that had been acquired, inspected or in some other stage of acquisition. He indicated, I think, that for the duration of the war no more land would be taken over. I would be glad if the Minister would say that is a fact, and also tell us what his policy is with regard to the division of land during the war. It would be well if we had a statement from the Minister, because we cannot have him saying one thing in this House and other people at land settlement committee meetings, and so on, saying something else. A statement from the Minister on what his policy is to be with regard to the acquisition and division of estates during the war would be welcome.

With regard to the division of land and the delays that have taken place, I want to refer to some estates that have been divided lately near where I live. While I do not want to be critical of the Land Commission, I do want to say that I think needless expense was incurred and a good deal of delay took place in connection with the division of those estates. In fact one would wonder if a calculation were to be made of the amount of expenses incurred in sending down inspectors and the amount of time lost by individuals called to the cross-roads to meet those inspectors, not once but several times, how it would work out in costs. Would it come to an amount equal to the value of the estate itself? To anybody looking on, surely the thing cannot seem satisfactory? I would like the Land Commission to look into that matter. I would again remind them, as I reminded them last year, that where there is an estate to be divided there is no necessity at all to call men from a radius of 20 miles around to a cross-roads to meet the inspector. These men are called because they belong to the old I.R.A. organisation, the Land Settlement organisation and so on. It is ridiculous to call men from 15 to 20 miles away to an area where there are considerably more than sufficient uneconomic holders to absorb all the land that is there to be divided up so as to make their uneconomic holdings economic.

I have listened to Deputy Cleary and Deputy Beegan from the West of Ireland. They seem to have only one idea in their heads, and that is that migrants from the West should be settled generally on estates throughout Ireland. We all have great sympathy with the men from the congested areas in the West. But just stop and look at the places where this scheme has been operated, and how? You give a holding of 14 Irish acres to migrants. We usually do not refer to statute acres at all, only Irish acres. Those 14 acres of land cost the Land Commission or the State something about £1,250. There are two sides to every question. Does any sane, sensible, reasonable man from the West of Ireland think that it is within reason at all to bring a family from the West of Ireland and place them on a holding on a divided estate at a cost of £1,250 to the State? On a 14-acre farm those people can do nothing except barely exist. When the family grows up the farm cannot support them. All that can be done when they reach 14 years of age is to send them out to work for some other farmer. It is ridiculous to think that you can create a decent economic livelihood upon 14 acres of land. It is a terrible thing to think that estates should be divided up into such small holdings as 14 Irish acres. We are having continuous talk about land division by members of this House. They talk at the cross-roads of its necessity. I wonder when we have all the land divided up and the people on these lands get married and produce families what are they then going to do with themselves? What is to happen when you create that type of holding of 14 or 15 acres? The people get married, rear families, and then what is the position? I do not say it will happen, but it seems to be the policy of some people to divide up the whole country into 14-acre farms. The Land Commission and the Minister would do well to drop those 14-acre holdings and drop migrating people at a cost of £1,250 to the State. Very little is got back in amenities. I do not know the position so well in Meath and Kildare, but I know that bordering every estate in the rest of the country with which I am acquainted there are decent, hardworking families trying to eke out an existence on uneconomic holdings. I should say that the very first duty of the Land Commission is to make uneconomic holders economic by giving them a piece of an adjoining estate. That is the best way to spend the money that we are spending. If the man who is seeking hard to rear a family on a 14-acre holding gets nine or ten additional acres he is going to be an asset to the State. He is a man who is going to pay his way.

The Land Commission do not look at the question in this way. I am aware that the inspectors make all kinds of excuses for the way in which the estates are divided. If one raises the question with an inspector as to why the man who has not a bob gets a parcel of land, or why the man who has no means of working the land gets a piece of land, or why it was not given to another person who is hardworking and industrious, one is always met with some such excuse as that the other fellow had a small shop and because of that he was deprived of a holding of land. In another case I was told that one deserving applicant lived in a cottage a mile away and so he was deprived of getting a holding. The extraordinary thing about it in that case is that this particular man was secretary of the local Fianna Fáil club but he did not get the land. Yet he was the most industrious man in the district. He had a number of cattle and he was rearing his family well. Yet on that estate other men got land and these other men were waiting for their neighbour across the road to take over the land on the following day. I hold that while there is an uneconomic holder who is industrious and hardworking living within a reasonable distance of the estate that man ought first to be provided for. Land settlement committees and I.R.A. committees should not be allowed to interfere in the division of land. I am not against providing for people who made big sacrifices in the past but the sooner we stop those various committees interfering with land settlement the better it will be.

I just want to refer for a moment to Deputy Cleary and his talk about a political ramp. What I am mentioning is and has been a political ramp. The Deputy who has just concluded said that more land was divided in 1934 and 1935 than in all the years since and that the Land Commission is now going too slowly. Yes, but some of the land divided in 1934 and 1935 was never since seen by some of the people amongst whom it was divided. That land has been set or let since then on the 11 months' system. I would be glad to see that political ramp being dropped. Deputy Cleary would be well advised to ask some of his own colleagues to drop this political ramp. If they did so, land division would be made easier for the Deputies of this House and for the Land Commission.

It is a dreadful thing to have Deputies holding meetings at cross-roads to form land settlement committees and getting a subscription of 2/6 from every member. We would all be prepared to pay 2/6 if we were promised land. There are hundreds of members joining, and they could not all be supplied with land. Then when the Land Commission divides an estate, and these people are not satisfied, Deputies tell them: "We will get it divided again." I ask the Minister to see that a stop is put to that kind of thing. I ask him, when replying to this debate, to let us know his definite policy upon the acquisition and division of lands, especially during the war.

I should also like to draw attention to a matter which was raised on this Estimate last year by the late Deputy Gorey, and that is the kind of fences which are built when land is divided. Fences are built over four feet high, with an enormous width at the bottom and the land is ploughed up for a couple of yards at each side and thrown into the fences. When cattle are put on these lands the natural thing for them to do is to tear up these fences. The cost of making these fences is very large, and a great amount of land is destroyed in the making of them. Even a farmer with 60 or 80 acres in my county would not dream of putting up such fences if he were dividing a ten acre field. He would not incur the cost of them, or destroy that amount of land in their making. I suggest to the Land Commission that they should get some practical advice as to the kind of fences that ought to be built. I think a narrow fence about five foot high made of whitethorn and wire would be better. Cattle will tear down any bank that is made, and the bigger it is the easier it is for them to tear it down. In my county a large number of men are employed building these fences and tearing up good land in the making of them.

As the Minister knows, a great number of applications are being made for the sub-division of holdings. A man may sell a portion of his holding to somebody else owing to economic reasons. What I complain of is that, where it is found suitable to sub-divide a holding, there is a very long delay in getting the Land Commission to deal with it. I have known of six or seven of these cases which went on for a year or a year and a half. The solicitors are complaining about this delay, the people who are buying cannot get the land, and the people who are selling cannot get their money. There may be some technical difficulties that I do not know of, but I understand from solicitors dealing with these cases that even in the most simple ones the delay is extraordinary. I ask the Land Commission to look into that matter. Some sub-division cases have been before the Land Commission for the last six months, and have not been finished yet. The solicitor dealing with these cases tells me that they are quite simple, and that there should be no trouble about them.

Then as to the arrears of annuities, that seems to be the most knotty problem of all, especially where the arrears extend over a great number of years. I must say that, so far as I know, the Land Commission are dealing fairly decently with people who are seeking time to pay and who are trying to pay. But there are a number of holdings held by people who have not paid any annuities for six or seven years. These people are the cause of disturbance in the minds of their neighbours, who may owe a year or two arrears. They come to me or some other Deputy and say: "Why can you not get time for me? My neighbour has not paid any annuities for several years. He must be well in with the Government side of the House." The Land Commission ought to try to find some means of dealing with people who are not paying annuities and who are not working their land. I know that it is a difficult matter, but I suggest that if it is necessary they should set up some kind of small committee outside the Land Commission before whom these people could be brought. If they do not intend to pay, they should be cleared out and given some compensation.

This system by which the Land Commission gets auctioneers to sell farms results in a dead loss. It is a waste of money getting an auctioneer to sell a holding. Nobody will buy the holding, and the loss still goes on, because the occupier does not work the land. As against that I will say that there are other people who owe larger arrears of annuities, and if they could be got to pay something more than the current annuity, I think the Land Commission would be well advised to accept it. I can understand that officials have to do their duty, and that there are certain things they cannot do. But where a man, through some cause or another, has failed to pay his annuity for four or five years, there may be a chance now of his making a little money, and if he agrees to pay something more than the current annuity, I suggest to the Land Commission that it would be a saving of money to accept that. He may agree to pay off his arrears in a certain time, and that would be better than taking the man into court or putting his farm up for sale, thus piling up the costs and in the end getting nothing or then trying to come to some agreement with him. There are a lot of these cases in my county, and I should like to see them settled. But when a man makes no effort to pay, there should be some way found of getting rid of him.

Then, where estates or farms are being well worked, and a big number of people are employed on them, if they have been under consideration for acquisition I think the occupiers should not be disturbed during the period of the war. When I say that, I am only referring to the one type of farm, and that is the farm which is producing its full quota and giving its full quota of employment. In that case, even with the cry for acquisition of land which we have to-day, I think the occupier ought to be left in possession until the war is over. Disturbance of holdings which are worked well and which produce their full quota and give employment is a bad thing.

Donnchadh O Briain

Ba mhaith liom cúpla puinnte a chur os comhair an Aire maidir leis an Meastachán so. Chomh fada agus if féidir liom-sa a dhéanamh amach, is beag ar fad an méid oibre atá ar siubhal fé láthair i gContae Luimnighe maidir le roinnt na talmhan. Tá na cigirí i Luimnigh beagnach díomhaoin fé láthair agus ní thuigim conus a bheadh an scéal mar sin. Is eol dom féin go bhfuil roinnt mhaith talmhan idir lámhaibh ag Comisiún na Talmhan le cúig bliana anuas agus níl fhios againn—agus is deacair dúinn a fhághail amach—cad a dhéanfaidh Comisiúin na Talmhan mar gheall air. Tá trí mhíle acra nó mar sin sa chuid de Chontae Luimnighe go bhfuil eolas maith agam féin air agus ba chóir é bheith briste suas fadó. Ba mhaith liom eolas éigin d'fhagháil ó'n Aire i dtaobh na dtalmhantaí seo.

Admhuighim gur obair chasta achrannach an obair atá idir lámhaibh ag Coimisiún na Talmhan maidir le roinnt na talmhan—ró-chasta agus róachrannach atá sé, dar liom-sa. Ba chóir, ámhthach go bhféadfaí an obair a bhrostú níos mó agus ná beadh moill chomh mór ann feasta.

Is deacair dom a thuisgint, a Chinn Chomhairle, ca'na thaobh ar dhiúltuigh an Comisiún le déanaighe talamh a thógaint suas ó dhaoine a thairg dóibh í as a stuaim féin. Thuit sé sin amach in dhá chás atá ar eolas agam. I geás amháin acu, bhí an chomharsanacht mór-thímpeal na feirme a bhí le roinnt, plóduighthe go maith—cuid mhaith feirmeoirí beaga agus eile—agus dhéanfadh roinnt na feirme leas an cheanntair ar fad. Ba chóir an t-eolas san go léir a bheith ag Comisiúin na Talmhan. Mar sin féin, do cuireadh in úil dom le déanaighe ná tógfaí suas an talamh san. Téigheann díom-sa a thuisgint cé'n fáth.

Cuid mhaith de na Teachtaí a labhair annso ar obair Choimisiún na Talmhan agus ar an ngléas agus ar na riaghlacha atá leagtha amacha acu chun talmhan a bhriseadh suas, thaisbeánadar go soiléir ná fuil mórán tuisgiona acu ar an scéal. Aontuighim go láidir leis an méid adubhairt an Teachta Pádraig O Beagáin i dtaobh na bhfear gan talamh. Sílim go bhfuil na riaghlacha atá ann le tamall anuas i dtaobh na bhfear gan talamh ródhocht agus ró-dhaingean agus ba chóir na riaghlacha céadna a bhogadh i slighe is go mbeadh caoi níos fearr ag iarrathóirí de'n tsórt so feirmeacha dfháil, aon áit a mbeadh an talamh le spáráil tréis lucht na ngabháltas mbeag do shásamh. Sé an saghas fir atá i gceist agam ná duine go bhfuil roinnt airgid aige ach ná fuil go leor aige chun feirm a cheannach dhó féin ach a mbeadh gustal go leor aige san am chéadna feirm a oibriú go maith dá bhfaigheadh sé í.

Mar ba ghnáthach blianta eile chualamar go leor cainnte sa díospóireacht so ar na daoine a tugadh ó Chonamara agus ó Cheanntracha Gaedhealacha eile go dtí Contae na Midhe. Tá súil agam ná cuirfidh an tAire aon tsuim sa chainnt a deineadh annso i gcoinnibh na hoibre sin. Sin obair fíor-ionmholta atá déanta ag Coimisiún na Talmhan agus ba chóir leanúint di go tréan. Ba chóir dúinn a mheabhrú dhúinn féin gurab iad na daoine seo ó Chonamara agus ó Cheanntracha Gaedhealacha eile a tugadh go Contae na Midhe le roinnt blian anuas gurab iad san sliocht na ndaoine a thiomáin Cromall siar go dtí na carraigreach agus go dtí na sléibhte.

Na daoine a tháinig go Contae na Midhe ó Chonamara agus ó áiteanna eile nílid ach á gcur thar n-ais sna tailte do baineadh o n-a sinnsir. Ní aon tslí is fearr chun an scéal do leigheas i gConamara agus sna ceanntracha cumhanga ná na daoine ná fuil in ndon slí bheatha do bhaint amach sna háiteanna san d'aistriú go dtí tailte méithe na Midhe no go dtí áit ar bith eile go bhfuil an talamh le fáil ann. An dream atá ag dul in aghaidh Coimisiún na Talmhan d'aistriú na ndaoine ó Chonamara níl eolas dá laighead acu ar Chonamara. Molaim do dhaoine atá ag dul i gcoinne polasaí Choimisiún na Talmhan ar an gceist seo cuairt do thabhairt ar Chonamara no ar Chiarraighe no ar Dhún na nGall agus féachaint ar an saol atá ag daoine sna háiteanna san. Má dheineann siad é sin, ní bheidh na tuairimí céanna acu atá acu anois.

Tá cupla gearán agam le déanamh sara suidhfe mé síos. Bíonn moill mhór ar Choimisiún na Talmhan ag freagairt leitreacha agus ag tabhairt eolais do sna Teachtaí. B'fhéidir go bhfuilimíd mí-fhoighdeach agus nach dtuigimíd na deacrachtaí atá ann, ach ba cheart córas éigin a bheith ann chun go bhfuigheadh na Teachtaí an t-eolas a bheadh ag teastáil uatha. Admhuighim go bhfuil feabhas ar an scéal le déanaighe agus tá súil agam go mbeidh feabhas níos fearr air. Bhí orm go minic fanúint ar feadh dhá mhí no trí sara bhfuaireas freagra ar leitreacha a scríobhas go dtí Coimisiún na Talmhan. Ba mhaith liom fios d'fháil ón Aire an bhfuil Coimisiún na Talmhan ar intinn leanúint de sna réimsí móra talmhan atá ar láimh acu i gCondae Luimnighe do roinnt.

Mr. Linehan

Deputy Corry spoke about a number of large holdings with considerable arrears of rates. He referred to the county council of which he is a member, and created one very wrong impression. He left the impression on my mind that there was something lacking in the way in which the county council had done its business, that these lands were being left derelict, and that there was no hope of recovering rates from them. In all cases where arrears of rates were over the sum of £40, the county council obtained and registered judgment mortgages against these holdings. That is as far as the county council could go. Once they obtained judgment mortgages they were, at least, protecting the ratepayers as far as the arrears went. They were in the position that they could scarcely do anything else. They could not very well go into court and ask for an order to sell the lands, for the reason that what happens in the case of forced sales, by banks or anyone else, would arise. I think Deputy Corry was wrong when he said that the county council was in the position that when the lands were sold they would only recover two years' arrears of rates. That only applies where there are not judgment mortgages registered, and where the incoming purchaser is made liable for the rates. Where judgment mortgages are registered the county council would be protected, and the incoming purchaser, for his own safety, would see that the entire amount due was cleared up. With regard to Deputy Corry's reference to the county council, I want to ask him what he wants to have done. Apparently he blames the county council for allowing arrears of rates to accrue, but all they did was to get judgment. Apparently the Deputy also blames the Land Commission for doing nothing, but he did not give the House any idea how he proposed to rectify the position. Deputy Corry considers himself to be an expert on land division and on Land Commission work. He is also a member of the Cork County Council. He blames everyone, including the county council, for what is happening about these estates, but he does not make the slightest suggestion as to how the position is to be dealt with. When he spoke about the division of land and the anxiety to put people on land in his part of the country, he made two most extraordinary statements. As far as I recollect, one was that there was a certain division of land into small holdings and that the annuities and rates put upon these holdings were so high that the people ran away from them, and only looked behind to see if the land was following them. The second statement was that around his area were the best farmers in Ireland, and they were so anxious for more land that there was weeping and gnashing of teeth because estates were not divided. I would not dream of hurting Deputy Corry's feelings, but if those farmers around Cobh junction have such anxiety for land division, and to get more land to work, it is a remarkable fact that there are so many farms for sale in that particular area that are being bought by people from the mountainous districts of West Cork every day.

I would be inclined to think that a lot of those people in good areas who fancy themselves as great farmers are not the great farmers they think they are. I do not know anything about the migratory system, but when a small mountainy farmer from Kerry or West Cork invests in good land, he will teach the men from other parts of Kerry and all the others how to work that land. I do not think there is the slightest justification for saying that there is any great anxiety for land in that portion of Cork to which the Deputy referred, because they would be buying land if there was, whereas we are sending men over to buy land every day in the week. Deputy Ryan referred to the question of sub-division. I find it very hard to blame the sub-division department for delay. They seem to have great pressure of work, and they are one of the most obliging of departments. That is a department which does not seem to have increased its staff for a number of years, and the work has increased beyond all knowledge. One of the principal reasons for the increase was the operation of the grants for the building of houses. When the £80 grant came into operation, a number of people on the edge of the towns and at cross-roads in the country bought half an acre or an acre for building purposes. They qualified for the full grant of £80, but they had to show title, get a sub-division, and register a proper transfer. That must have created an extraordinary amount of work in the sub-division department. Every solicitor in the country who does this work has cause for complaint regarding delay in dealing with these matters, but the explanation seems to be that there has been no increase of staff despite the increase of work. It would be a great benefit to a lot of people who are held up if something could be done to expedite these subdivisions.

Let me cite a common case. A worker has a little bit of money—say, £100—and he decides to build a house. He qualifies for the £80 grant. He buys a rood or so of land. It is purchased land and must be sub-divided. He builds his house and deposits the money to buy the land long before the sub-division is effected. He is actually in occupation of his house, and he owes the contractor who built it the whole of the £80 grant. He is being pestered for the £80, but he does not get the grant until the sub-division is completed and a new folio has been opened. That is really a great hardship, and something should be done to expedite matters.

An amusing thing happens in connection with the Land Commission. They are very slow when dealing with applications under the Acts of 1931 and 1933 on behalf of people who hold under fee farm grants or long leases which have more than 60 years to run. About a year or two years elapse after the application is made before these cases come to the court of the Land Commission. One would not mind that if it did not give rise to awkward situations. When application is made, there are generally arrears of rent due to the head landlord. If the application succeeds, the applicants come in on the same terms as other purchasers—that is to say, the annuities are halved, three years' arrears are funded, and the rest is wiped out. If they owe four years' arrears at the time of the application, the matter may hang over for two years, and they then owe six years' arrears. There is nothing to prevent the landlord issuing an action of ejectment or an action for non-payment of rent against these people. The mere fact that they have lodged an application is no protection to them, according to a decision of the High Court. The landlord may be quick off the mark and issue an ejectment for non-payment of rent, or an ejectment on the title after they make their application. Simply because they have made the application, he may "put them on the spot". He may not make any effort to recover the arrears until they make their application to the Land Commission. There should be some machinery for speeding up the hearing of these applications.

The Land Commission deal with these applications in an extraordinary way. You wait six or nine months or a year and you hear nothing about the application. Then, some morning, you get a query sheet, divided up so as to give space on one side for the query and on the other for the reply. In red ink across the head of the sheet, you are told that the matter is urgent and that a reply should be furnished within, say, 14 days. After waiting perhaps for 16 or 18 months for a reply to your application, you suddenly get this query sheet with a request for a reply within 14 days. You comply and then the matter fades out, probably, for another period. After waiting for a reply for 18 months, it is sometimes difficult to remember what the matter was all about. It is very hard to convince people in the country who make these applications either for sub-division or under the 1931 or 1933 Act that there is not some carelessness somewhere. It is very hard to convince a person who has a job which he wants to get done quickly that there is not some neglect. There is no use in explaining that the unfortunate Land Commission is snowed under and harassed by 138 people who are concerned not with the division of land but with staving off the sheriff in many cases and that merely prosaic matters, where people want to bring their lands within the meaning of the Land Acts, must wait.

Deputy Ryan also referred to the question of fencing. I was glad to hear him mention that. I know of two instances where an already small field was divided in two by the Land Commission who built a most magnificent bank down through the centre of it. A large amount of earth on each side was taken up for the purpose of making that bank. Looking at it, the only useful purpose it could serve, because it would not be a good fence, would be for training horses to jump over. It would be ideal for that, but as a fence it would be a pure waste of time and money.

I think it was Deputy Hickey who referred last night to co-operative farming in Wales. I doubt if that would succeed here. It might and it might not. I think there would be one great disadvantage here. The small farmers in this country, when they are on good terms in the neighbourhood and decide to work together, work very effectively and help each other to a very large extent. They would be doing that voluntarily and there would be no pressure about it. I do not think, however, that bringing in a number of men, already small farmers, men who would be taken out of uneconomic holdings, and putting them into co-operative farming, possibly under a manager and overseers, would be satisfactory. I do not think it would work at all. There would be always this danger, that the Irish farmer, quite naturally, would be independent-minded and might like to carry on and work out his own livelihood. In these circumstances I do not think he would react very favourably to that system. I do not like the idea myself. It might be to some extent successful if it were developed for landless men, if they had the feeling that they were doing something to benefit themselves and their families, but as regards any man with an independent type of mind, you would find it hard to get him to work in co-operation with other men. I do not know what Deputy Hickey thinks of the small farmers of County Cork, but I imagine that you would find it hard to dragoon them into co-operative farming.

There is one matter upon which I would like an explanation. It has been said, ever since the passing of the 1933 Land Act, when the Land Commission annuities were halved, that the liability of the farmer was halved completely. I think the Minister and his colleagues have always maintained that that was so. For instance, let us say a farmer was given an advance of £1,000 for the purchase of his farm and, paying the annuity for 10 or 12 years, he reduced the capital liability to £800. If the capital liability was £800 on the passing of the 1933 Act, and I accept the Government's interpretation as correct, then his capital liability would be £400 instead of £800. It would mean, when his annuity was halved, that in order to wipe out his total liability he would pay only the half annuity for the same time as originally he would have paid the full annuity.

Where I am worried about this matter is that there have been conflicting statements made about it. Government speakers have always maintained that the liability is halved, that the halved annuity will be paid only for the same length of time as the original annuity would have been paid. I shall be glad if the Minister will point out anything in the law, either as amended by the 1933 Act or otherwise, that would show that the capital liability of the farmer is definitely halved and that there is legal ground for assuming that he will pay only the half annuity for the same time as he would be paying the whole annuity.

I should like to put a few questions to the Minister in order to elucidate this matter. When a person buys a farm and he is subject to a Land Commission annuity, there is a stamp duty revenue together with the redemption value of the annuity. When certificates of redemption value of the annuity are being issued, do they represent the entire liability of the farmer? At any rate, that is what they purport to show. What I want to know is, does the figure that appears on the certificate of the redemption value of the annuity on any given date represent the halved figure, or does it merely show the normal reduction in the redemption value of the annuity after deducting the amount of the annuity paid and the portion of the annuity that went into the sinking fund?

There is one important reason for making that point. The title deed of any farmer to his holding is his land certificate. Nine times out of ten the land certificate remains in the possession of the Land Commission unless it is taken over by a bank or a mortgagor as security. It is set out on the certificate that the Lands are subject to a charge by the Land Commission for the sum of, let us say, £1,000, in respect of an advance repayable by an annuity until the advance has been repaid. If you get the land certificate of any farmer you will find, on the face of it, not a 50 per cent. liability but a 100 per cent. liability, and the land certificate shows, so far as the ordinary individual can see, and so far as any legal or lay man can see, examining the man's title, that his land seems still to be subject to the original liability, less whatever he has paid off in annuities. There is no reference to show that the 1933 Act or any other Act amended the position and halved his liability.

This is an important thing and it bears very much on the position of any landholder. There are people who purchased under the 1885 and earlier Acts. Under normal circumstances, particularly where they did not take the decadal reduction, the termination of the annuities should be very near at hand. They would be very interested to know, when their annuities were halved, how far was the period of repayment extended. Do they merely continue paying the halved annuity for the original time, or do they pay the halved annuity for double the period? That is a matter that is agitating the minds of many people. If the Minister states, as his predecessor did, that the halved annuity will be paid only for the same length of time as was originally set out—if that is the Government's interpretation of the law — would he point out to me where there is anything in any Land Act to show that that is the correct interpretation of the law? I failed to find it in the 1933 Land Act, and other people have failed to find it.

This is a most important matter. If any Deputy owns a farm on which the original advance was £1,000, and it appears on his land certificate that the charge is for £1,000, if the Government's interpretation of the law is correct and if a note could be put on the certificate indicating that owing to the operation of the 1933 Act that charge has been reduced to £500, or whatever the amount might be, it would be a decided acquisition to the owner from the point of view of the value of the land, and it would indicate that there is no danger of the halved annuity creeping along for a far greater period than people believed when they took the Government's viewpoint as to the meaning of the 1933 Land Act.

Another point with which I should like to deal refers to warrants for seizures. The sheriff operates on a warrant from the Land Commission which gives him authority to do certain things. The relevant section dealing with that is Section 28 of the 1933 Land Act, which provides that the Land Commission can issue a warrant to the sheriff of a county entitling him to levy. It is provided that a warrant issued under the section shall have the same force and effect as an execution order under the Enforcement of Court Orders Act.

I want to put this point to the Minister. I wonder if the sheriffs and the Land Commission have been collecting a little bit of extra money illegally over the last seven or eight years, because it appears to me that there is no power under the 1933 Land Act, or anywhere else, to entitle the sheriff when issuing a warrant to put down at the bottom of it 5/- and 1/-. He usually puts in 6/-. The Enforcement of Court Orders Act would not give him any authority to do that. The section says that a warrant under this section shall have "the same force and effect", and so on, but it does not say that the regulations dealing with the costs of a warrant, or anything like that, shall apply to this warrant of the Land Commission. The section provides that it shall be lawful for the Land Commission to issue a warrant in the prescribed form and so on, and authorises the sheriff to levy "in accordance with this section the money aforesaid". The "money aforesaid" is the money due by the defaulting annuitant. If my interpretation of the section is correct, I think the sheriffs have been illegally collecting these 6/-, 8/- or 11/- from defaulting annuitants over the past eight years. They have been doing that without, in my opinion, any power given to them under the 1933 Act. The warrant issued from the Land Commission simply entitles them to collect "the money aforesaid", and the money aforesaid is the annuity that the person owes. The Enforcement of Court Orders Act does not, I submit, entitle him to add costs or other fees. It is provided that a warrant issued under this section "shall have the same force and effect as an execution order" under the Enforcement of Court Orders Act. I think in that context the words "force and effect" mean that the sheriff will be entitled to execute in the same manner as he would an ordinary decree of the District Court, or an order for the payment of moneys by instalment under the Enforcement of Court Orders Act. I would ask the Minister to give his attention to the two points I have raised—first, the halving and funding of annuities, and, secondly, this question of the sheriffs' fees. If he does, he will help to clear the air of some rather vexatious matters which are agitating the minds of a number of people.

We have had very little experience of the division of land in my constituency, or at least in the end of it in which I reside. Only one estate has been divided there. There is not very much land available for division. I want to say in connection with that estate that the inspectors who divided it and allotted the land did a very good job. That, I may say, is the opinion of everybody. Deputy J. Ryan, when speaking, objected to what he called land settlement committees and various other committees holding meetings at cross-roads and deciding who were going to get farms, and so on. I would not object to that at all. As a matter of fact, I do not think any Deputy on this side of the House should object. I think it is one of the best things that could happen. What really happens is that some of our friends on the opposite side of the House have, in order to save their own faces, to hold these meetings. There is a meeting held for the division of, say, 300 acres. You have about 500 people attending it, all looking for some of the 300 acres. You have to send them all home hoping that they are going to get some of it. So far as my own constituency is concerned, I would be very sorry to see these little meetings fall through, because, mind you, the attitude of the people who are expecting to get some of the 300 acres and do not get it is going to be very marked. Therefore, I say that I do not object to those meetings at all. I think they are perfectly harmless. In my opinion, they are not going to influence in the slightest the people sent down by the Land Commission to divide an estate. I have had only one experience of how they do their job and, as I have said, they did it well. I do not think they could have made a better division. One remarkable feature of it was that no one could have any grievance from the political point of view. The mixture was so good that no one could quarrel with it.

Mr. J.P. Kelly

I have listened to the speeches made from the Fine Gael Benches objecting to the division of land in the County Meath. We have been told by representatives of constituencies in the eastern and western portions of the country that the division of the Meath lands will be detrimental to the Western farmers, inasmuch as that the big cattle fairs in the West will fade away. It is not correct to say that cattle will not be required any longer in Meath if the land is divided, or that cattle from the West are finished in the County Meath and sold as fat cattle. The position is this. The big holders in Meath go to the West and purchase the heavier type of cattle from the large holders there. The small holders in Meath purchase a smaller type of cattle from the small holders of the West, and, even if they do not go to the fairs and markets themselves, they have their representatives there to purchase the smaller cattle, bring them home, and retail them in the County Meath. I hold that the division of land in Meath would be a great benefit to the small holders in the West. I do not say it would not be a benefit to the larger holders in the West.

I have said that it is not correct to say that cattle are finished in Meath. The graziers in the County Meath are merely rehandlers of cattle. They buy them in the West from the large holders, take them home, and feed them for a few months, and then send them across to the Scotch and English feeders who will finish them off and turn them into beef for the English market. The graziers are merely rehandlers who are eking out a living for themselves and their families, perhaps with difficulty. They are certainly not able to give any employment on their land by carrying on this sort of trade. Generally speaking, you will find that those are the men who complain that times are not as they should be.

The Fine Gael Party should not object to the division of Meath lands. Some Deputies profess great concern for the unemployed. As far as I can see, the division of Meath lands has, to a great extent, relieved unemployment where it has been carried out. We are told that we should not be parochial in our outlook in regard to the division of land, but should have a national outlook. We, in the County Meath, believe that we have a national outlook in asking that County Meath men should be provided with land before migrants or other people get it. We are only asking for additions to our uneconomic holdings, and we have a number of these in the County Meath. We are only asking that these should be made economic. We also ask for accommodation plots for cottagers, so as to enable them to have grass for their cows, and thereby provide milk for their families. I am sure no Deputy will say that there is anything wrong with that request. We also ask for land for landless men who have been making their living on the land, where the taking over of an estate would definitely interfere with their present mode of living.

I listened to Deputy Beegan to-day advocating that if landless men were provided with land in any particular county, that landless men in Galway should have equal rank with landless men anywhere else. Surely, the landless man in Galway should not have equal right with a landless man in Meath who would be losing the living that he had been getting heretofore upon that land. I hold that it would be unjust to introduce any system that would deprive any of those people of a percentage of the land division. It is only right that specially sympathetic consideration should be given to the men who fought for their country when they were needed. We have listened to a great deal in connection with migration. We, in County Meath, have had a good deal of migration to our county. Let me say now that I have met the majority of those migrants from time to time. I found them honest and hard-working men, typical of the West of Ireland. They are good Irishmen who were forced to seek a livelihood in new surroundings among brother Irishmen. I feel that Fine Gael are free to object to the policy that brings migrants to Meath. They are justified in criticising the application of the machinery that gives so much land to, or leaves so much land available for, those migrants. But I do think that it is unfair to run away with the character of those people, and to do so for political ends. A few years ago I defended those people because I felt that the attacks on them were unjustifiable. It may be good political propaganda, but, at the same time, I think it is unjust and unfair.

Another matter to which I refer is the request to the Minister by Fine Gael Deputies, if there is to be migration to Meath, to bring over from the West of Ireland the bigger holders. We in Meath have had experience of the operation of the Fine Gael policy which brought bigger holders from the West of Ireland to the County Meath. The derelict farms which these men left from year to year are eloquent testimony of the failure of the policy initiated by Fine Gael. We, in County Meath, have no objection to the introduction of migrants, provided that eligible local applicants are provided for with land. But definitely we prefer the small type of holder to the larger type, because we believe the smaller type of holder is a more useful member of society.

Perhaps the only objection to which I wish to give utterance against the operations of the Land Commission is that they do not always see eye to eye with Deputies when considering all eligible local applications. I would like to see a little more elasticity in the selection of eligible local applicants. You usually find, when an estate is being divided, that there are a couple of applicants who would be borderline cases, men who would be turned down because the Land Commission may think that they were not entirely conforming to the rules and regulations, though locally it would be held that these men were entitled to a piece of land, even though not entirely in conformity with the rules and regulations. It has been stated here by a Deputy from the West of Ireland that failures amongst the allottees have been very numerous. That is not my experience. I can say that the percentage of failures is small indeed. The majority of allottees have proved themselves good farmers. They have indulged in a system of mixed farming which previously, and for generations, was not carried out on the ranch on which their holdings stand. I may say that not the least successful of these allottees were landless men. Some of these allottees have model holdings, and a number of them are prizewinners in the county agricultural competitions.

I hold, with other Deputies, that the holdings that have been allocated are too small to enable the allottee to make a livelihood for himself and his family, if the family is a large one. I have always advocated that an economic holding should be somewhere in the region of 40 acres. I am satisfied that the Land Commission is coming to the conclusion that larger holdings than those previously allotted are advisable. During the last couple of years I have noticed a tendency on the part of the Land Commission to give larger holdings. That is all to the good. I notice also that common grazing has been placed at the disposal of one of the Gaeltacht settlements. That proves that the holdings already held were too small. If they were too small in one particular case they are too small in every other case, whether they were given to migrants or to the local people.

The western Deputies, probably, should shoulder some of the responsibility for having very small holdings. I have listened time and time again to Deputies here advocating small holdings for the people from the West. They said that people in the West of Ireland could live on 20 acres of land, and that if they could live on 20 acres of land in the West of Ireland why should they not be able to live on 20 acres of better land in the County Meath? The circumstances are altogether different. It is much easier to live on 20 acres of land in the West of Ireland than on 20 acres of better land in Meath. The overhead charges on our holdings in Meath are higher. The Poor Law Valuation is higher and the rates are much higher. It will also be found that the annuities are higher. All other charges are higher in the County Meath than in the West. Deputies from the West would do well to consider these things. I think it is very inadvisable on their part to advocate a smaller type of holding even for migrants. I am aware that the Land Commission have on hands a large acreage of land in County Meath at the moment. I would request the Minister to recommend the provision of land for the congests in County Meath from the acreage available in the Land Commission books. We have had internal migration in the County Meath and it has proved very satisfactory. Of course, Deputies from the West may wonder that we in County Meath have our own internal migration problem. We have our own congests and we have bad land in some parts of Meath, as bad as is to be found in any part of Ireland. It is usually in the districts where the land is bad that we find people huddled together on very small holdings. The Land Commission have tried to remedy that situation and they have done very good work. But now that the acquisition of land is being slowed down, I should like them to consider these people before they consider migrants from other places in any division of land that may take place.

I regret this slowing up of land acquisition. It has been suggested that it would interfere with the compulsory tillage scheme if the Land Commission were to proceed with the acquisition of land as quickly as they proceeded in the past. But we find that there is altogether more tillage done on the small farms. When a large farm of, say, 300 acres is divided into nine or ten holdings you will have a greater amount of tillage done than when it is left in one farm. If you take the 300-acre farm in Meath, a proportion of which has been tilled under the compulsory tillage scheme, you will find that there is only one man employed upon the farm. The tillage portion is let to an outsider, who will have a tractor. One man would till that land in a couple of days and it would need no attention until the harvest, when one man would reap the oats sown in the spring. On the other hand, if that were divided you would provide for about ten families on the same amount of land and they would till more than the 12½ per cent. required under the compulsory tillage scheme. Not alone would these holdings give a living to nine or ten families, but in the busy season of the year employment would be given to others.

That is more than can be said for the large type of grazing farm. Then the occupier of the large farm will claim exemption for the non-arable portion of the farm while the small farmer will bring all the land he is allotted by the Land Commission into an arable condition. The larger farmer will not manure his land; he will allow it to deteriorate and it will be overrun with weeds in a couple of years; whereas the small farmer will provide farmyard manure and thus enrich the land and turn it into a national asset.

There is another aspect of the situation and that is that on the portion of the larger holding that is untilled you will find store cattle grazing, while on the smaller farm there will be an increase of agricultural produce. In a time of national emergency such as we are going through now it is the smaller farmer to whom we must look for the extra food supplies that are so necessary. I notice that the allottees who have been given land during the past few years produce beef cattle. In fact they have increased the output of beef cattle in many places. They also rear pigs and poultry and grow vegetables, as well as animal feeding stuffs. We also find that the small holder carries on sound cropping from properly fertilised soil, while the larger holder, who is forced by the compulsory tillage order to till portion of his land, carries on careless cropping and generally leaves the land in a useless state. That happened when the compulsory tillage order was in force during the last war. In County Meath large tracts were ploughed up then. Some of the land was not even sown, although it was considered to be tillage land. Other parts were sown but no reaping was done. We do not want to see that happen again. That does not happen with the small holder. If the Land Commission acquired those big holdings and allotted them to the small holders that would not happen. With a greater number of small holders you will have greater security as regards food supplies. Therefore, I submit that the benefits accruing from the division of land will more than compensate for the cost. It certainly is the best assurance that the country can have against shortage of food during the emergency.

Mr. Cole

The majority of Deputies who spoke were in favour of the division of land. While I do not object to that, as County Cavan is a county of small holdings, yet there are one or two cases in which I should like to raise an objection. There was one case in particular where a man who came home from abroad bought a farm. Before doing so his solicitor made inquiries from the Land Commission as to whether they intended to take over this farm. He got a direct answer that the Land Commission did not intend to purchase the land. That was about 12 years ago. Periodically ever since that occupier has been put to enormous trouble and expense by having proceedings instituted for the acquisition of his farm and cases brought before the Land Commission and the courts. In the end nothing was done about the farm. If the inspectors decide once that land is not suitable for division, I think that that should end the matter and that the occupier should not be troubled any more by inspections and inquiries by the Land Commission.

In this particular case the man occupies the land himself. He is living on it and is carrying on in a husbandry-like manner. He is giving a certain amount of employment, and tilling a great deal more than his predecessor did. Still, the trouble is going on. As I say, once the Land Commission do not consider that it is a case for acquisition the matter should end there.

There was another case in County Monaghan, across the border from Cavan, in which a man who came home from Canada purchased a farm for a considerable amount. That man has another small holding. He is a regestered milk trader in Clones. His case has been brought several times before the Land Commission, and inspectors have visited the land and made inquiries about what he is doing. A terrible lot of unrest has been created in the district owing to people expecting to get portion of this land, which the Land Commission have already decided was not suitable for division; at least, if they did not decide that, when the case was heard there was nothing done in the matter, and, therefore, I consider that the Land Commission decided that it was not suitable for division. I think the Minister for the Co-Ordination of Defensive Measures, when he was Minister for Lands, made a statement in this House that where land was used in a proper way, and was tilled as it should be tilled—not tilled as it is now under the compulsory tillage scheme—and employment was given, the occupier would not be disturbed. It is on that account that I appeal to the Land Commission to consider these cases. As I say, once they are considered and decided upon there should be an end to the matter.

Another matter which I wish to call attention to is the price that is offered for land. This Canadian who came home paid a couple of thousand pounds for the land, but the Land Commission only offered him a few hundreds for it. Land which the Land Commission acquires should bring a reasonable price. I do not wish to press this matter now, but it is no harm to call attention to it, in the hope that it will receive consideration.

Mr. J. Flynn

At one time we put forward a scheme in connection with migration, for reclamation work on a large scale by the Land Commission in congested areas. In the plan we set out proposals in detail so much so that they would appear to be workable, and to be the right way to deal with the problem. Even though the Land Commission appeared to be satisfied at the time nothing has been done about it. I understand some official queried it on the grounds that if it was proceeded with it would be detrimental to migration schemes. I submit that the scheme that was submitted would work in conjunction with migration, in other words, on the principle that small holders could be grouped in congested areas, where holdings adjacent to commonage or rough grazing mountain land could be reclaimed or drained at very little cost per acre. According to our scheme the expenditure entailed amounted to £800 for every 25 holdings.

That would help to enable 25 uneconomic holders living adjacent to the mountain side to available of the reclamation scheme and get an additional 20 or 30 acres. I ask the Minister to have the position reviewed now. I cannot understand why an official should turn down such a scheme, or query it without having given it a trial in some district. I submit that the scheme would have been an incentive as far as migration is concerned, because some people could be transferred to larger holdings, and those who remained in the district would also benefit.

I wish to protest against Deputy Giles' slander on migrants. If the Deputy meant it to apply to migrants from the West, we must accept it as applying to migrants from Kerry and other places also. I know men who were transferred from Ballinskelligs and other districts who are a credit to any county and that would be an acquisition to any country that adopted them as citizens. Deputy Giles' references to these men were uncalled for, because they represent the real Ireland and the real Gaelic spirit. They are the type of people who, we hope, one day will re-colonise the whole country with their traditions of Gaelic civilisation.

The Land Commission has been dealing with the division of turbary in County Kerry for ten years. There has been no definite results of the work on the Drummond estate. The Land Commission was asked to divide the turbary and although consideration of the scheme commenced 12 years ago, the survey was delayed, and the tenants concerned are awaiting its completion. Then the Land Commission ordered a new survey, involving additional expenditure. I could never understand why the Land Commission cannot do things in a business-like way. Some time some man will come along and take on himself the part of a dictator by reorganising the whole system on business lines.

Mr. Dillon

Hear, hear. You are nine years at it, and did not make much of it yet.

Mr. Flynn

That is one instance where from 50 to 80 tenants have been waiting, without result, for the division of turbary for 10 or 12 years. Nothing has been done. The tenants do not know which of the plots belong to them. Probably another survey will have to take place. I am not blaming the officials of the Land Commission, but I am blaming the system that prevails, because it seems never to get down to definite things. I ask the Minister to see that something is done about the matter now.

Mr. Bennett

What struck me in this debate about the Land Commission, as far as it relates to the acquisition and division of land, was the rather remarkable change that has come about in the opinions of Deputies in all parts of the House on that question. I remember not very many years ago, when the Land Commission Vote was on, we had a rather general all-round demand for the acquisition of land and the planting of men on the land. I notice in this debate that there has been a remarkable change of attitude. In fact, we had Deputies, even in the Government Party, who at one time were loudest in their demands for the acquisition and distribution of lands amongst landless men, decrying that method now. We had a remarkable speech yesterday from Deputy Cleary, emphasising as strongly as he could the bad effects that would result from the distribution of land amongst landless men. From another part of the House we had a demand for the distribution of land on a co-operative basis amongst collections of individuals. In the last resort there was not as much said about the distribution of land amongst uneconomic holders as there should be. Generally, from the tone of the debate, it is clear that many Deputies have come to the conclusion that the amount of land to be acquired and divided is relatively small. We have departed from the time when every wild Deputy who chose to get up and speak demanded that we should "acquire and divide" without any consideration as to the harm we might be doing in the acquisition or division. I have no great objection to the acquisition or division of land in certain circumstances. I should like to be assured, however, that whatever land is taken will be taken only for one or two reasons—that the particular holder has more land than he can possibly work in a useful manner or that, having less land, he is working that land in a manner which is not in accord with good husbandry. Having decided that it was necessary to acquire land, it would be immaterial to me to whom it was given—whether to a landless man or to an uneconomic holder—provided the Land Commission and everybody else were satisfied that the particular individuals who got it were going to use it to greater advantage than the person who had it. If we look back on what happened in recent years, I do not think we can be satisfied that the results expected have accrued. Land has been taken over in different counties and divided amongst landless men and others. Whatever objection there may have been to the original holders on the ground that they were not working the land to the satisfaction of the Land Commission, it has generally emerged that the people who have got the land have worked it in a less satisfactory manner. In fact, the majority have not worked it at all. It does not matter a tittle to me who gets the land, whether a landless man or an uneconomic holder. I leave out the co-operative aspect for the moment. If we are all agreed, as I think we are, that the amount of land still to be acquired and divided is small, we ought to be very careful of the manner in which we suggest this land should be acquired or divided. The time has come when Deputies of all Parties should recognise that the acquisition and distribution of land henceforth must be slow. We cannot have the rapid division of land we had in past years.

Deputy Kelly said that he objected to the Land Commission because they did not see eye to eye with local Deputies. That is the kernel of the whole difficulty. Every Deputy looks upon himself as the proper person to acquire and distribute the land in his own locality. He wants to use the division of land as a vote-catching machine. It is time we got away from that particular principle, and the Land Commission, to give them due credit, are trying to get away from it. Deputy Flynn had rather the same objection to the Land Commission, although he put it in different words. He did not object to the Land Commission for not seeing eye to eye with local Deputies, but he did object by saying that, if the Land Commission did not do so and so to the satisfaction of certain Deputies, a dictator would be put in upon them. Like the Land Commission, I object to local Deputies acquiring and distributing land. I also object to land settlement committees, clubs or other bodies having any hand in the acquisition or division of land, though one Deputy patted one of these organisations on the back. I should like the Land Commission to make up their own minds on this matter, and to make them up quickly.

One objection I have to the Land Commission procedure in acquiring land is that it is too dilatory. Some farmer wants to sell his farm. Immediately, there is a demand—perhaps by a local Deputy or by somebody inspired by one of the local Deputies or by a land-settlement committee—for division of that farm. The Land Commission takes a year and a half to decide whether they will acquire the land or not. The unfortunate owner is between the devil and the deep sea. He cannot sell because nobody will buy when there is a demand for division. The various applicants are in a state of woeful confusion while the agitation lasts. They cannot put their hearts into their work. They spend most of their time running from one Deputy to another, and from one committee to another, to see if there is any chance that they will be amongst the lucky ones in the draw. They regard it as a sort of sweepstake. I do not want to see land divided on the sweepstake principle. I want to see worthy people get the land. But I want to see, in the first place, the Land Commission make up their minds quickly and definitely whether lands are to be acquired or not. When a demand is made for the acquisition of land, they should make a rapid decision. That will help the owner, and it will help to allay the general confusion in the locality. The lands we are taking now are being taken almost entirely from farmers, and they are being taken at considerable financial loss to them. Deputy Cole mentioned one instance, and I could mention several. The farmer whose land is acquired by the Land Commission suffers pecuniary loss. In doing that injury, we ought to consider whether it is in the national interest or not. If it is in the national interest that injustice be done and that the man get an unfair price for his land, then there is no way out. But, having done one injustice, we should be careful not to do another. We should be careful that the men to whom we give this land will not be a burden on the State. Every Deputy should recognise that every farm of reasonable dimensions which the Land Commission takes over and divides costs the State £600 or £700. Is that such a small sum that it can be distributed as dole without taking into consideration the type of future tenant we are to have on the land? I could point in my own county to landless men who got 20 or 30 acres of land and who should never have got even an acre. These men made no attempt to work the land since they got it.

It may be that in certain cases the inspectors going down to divide land are hampered by regulations. I admit they are. There are regulations as to valuation, as to proximity, and there are certain other regulations to be observed when estates are being divided. Valuations differ in various counties. A man with a £17 valuation in one district might have such a small quantity of land as to be an uneconomic holder. A valuation of £17 or £18 in another district would give a man so much land that he might be considered a reasonably big farmer. In such circumstances the regulations should not be very strictly adhered to. In many districts sound, decent men, who would make good tenants and farmers, have been debarred from getting land because of the regulations, just because they might be 5/- over a certain valuation. There was one regulation made with regard to proximity. If the man were one and a half or two miles distant from a certain place he might be debarred; it might be considered that he was a half-mile or a quarter of a mile outside a specified distance. For one reason or another a man might be debarred, although from every other aspect he would be a desirable tenant.

So far as landless men are concerned, I think the day has passed when landless people can expect to get land. The idea that there was land available for landless men never existed in my imagination, but it did in the imaginations of many Deputies, if their speeches can be taken as an indication. Some of them were of the opinion that there was land available for everyone. There never was in this State sufficient land to give every applicant an acre, not to mind a reasonable farm. There is not enough land left at the moment to give one out of every 500 applicants anything like an averaged sized farm.

With regard to the size of farms, there has been a remarkable change. There was a time when it was just a matter of distributing land irrespective of how much you gave this man or that man, or the circumstances of this person or that person. Times have changed, and Deputies see the results of the earlier methods of land division. They observe that men who got seven or eight acres, just because the local Deputy or the club committee made a push, have been failures; that no man could live on seven or eight acres. We now hear Deputies advocating parcels of land extending to 20 or 30 or 40 acres. One Deputy suggested that nothing less than 40 acres would be a workable farm for any allottee.

I have always advocated that land should be given in reasonably large portions. I have always been under the impression that a person with seven or eight acres could only be regarded as an uneconomic holder, and that you were merely creating uneconomic holdings when you distributed land in that manner. I consider that the least you can give a man would be something like 25 acres. It naturally follows that the number of people we can place on the land, giving them that acreage, is very small. We have to be very careful of the men and women that we put into such holdings—I suppose the majority will be men. We have to consider the character and ability of the person who will be given the land. The inspector who goes down to look after the distribution can generally get information on that point.

I suggest that no landless man should get land unless he can produce evidence that he is able and prepared to work it. There are numerous landless men who, through their own labour, have acquired the saving faculty. There are many under-paid workmen—and God knows that most of the agricultural workers are under-paid —but they are the type of men who, through their thrifty habits, have put a little money aside, and these are the very men who are generally debarred from getting a holding. If there is an agitation in a district in regard to land division you will find the industrious, thrifty man has a smaller number pushing him, while there are 40 men at least pushing the man who can spout and pull his weight in the Fianna Fáil club. There are few supporters for the industrious man who has by hard work put a little money aside. I say that that type of man should receive first consideration. Thrift ought to be considered as a good qualification when land is going to be distributed. A man who is thrifty without land is going to be more so when he gets it. Landless men ought to be considered if they can show any qualification of that type.

Uneconomic holders ought to have first consideration when land is being divided. We have a great number of farmers with holdings of ten acres, and if there is any land to be divided they should have the first call. Deal with the uneconomic holders first, and, when their requirements are satisfied, deal with the landless men. Let us give every consideration to the thrifty, industrious, landless man, and let us get away from the hide-bound regulations of the Land Commission. We have heard of cases where decent farmers with eight or ten acres have been debarred because of some kink in Griffith's valuation, and they are 5/- above the line drawn by the Land Commission. That sort of regulation ought not to be rigidly adhered to. Unfortunately, it has been to my own knowledge, and it has debarred many a useful applicant from getting land.

Some Deputy mentioned the fences that have been and are being erected by the Land Commission. That is a matter that has often been alluded to here. It is notorious that the fences erected by the Land Commission, and indeed by other public bodies, are about the worst type that could possibly be imagined. We had in this country in the old days what was called in hunting counties the "double bank." It has been there for centuries. Some of these banks were eight, ten and 12 feet wide, and they remained there for 100 or 150 years. It was not a particularly economic type of fence, and it would not be built now. The Land Commission built what is generally called a single bank, a narrow bank which somebody referred to as a good hunting bank. It is not a good hunting bank, and it would not tend to make hunting popular.

The Land Commission is now building little narrow banks for fences. They are in or about four and a half feet at the bottom, and about half a foot at the top. I have seen these banks constructed in the summer months. I suppose it was from lack of experience that the Land Commission inspectors undertook the work at that time. I do not think any ordinary farmer would build the fences during the summer months when the earth is dry and when the fences will crumple. I have seen some of those banks collapse almost before they were completed. The building of them is a woeful misuse of public money. They cannot last for many years, and really lead to a great wastage of land. You have big dykes on each side, so that where a big estate is divided a considerable amount of land is wasted. In the past, when it was the custom to divide land in parcels of eight or ten acres, the position was that you had almost as much land under the fences as under cultivation. In the case of a big estate, if all the land wasted in that way could so to speak be collected together it would make a fine farm. Would it not be far better to put up a fence of concrete with posts or a strong wire fence? Fences of that type would take up very little room and would last much longer than the miserable attempts at fences which the Land Commission have been making.

Deputy Linehan raised two rather interesting points that were not referred to in the general debate. One was the question of the redemption value of land, and the other the amount of the charge which is inserted in the land certificate. I hope the Minister will make a definite statement on these matters in his reply.

I got up principally for the purpose of saying that we are rapidly approaching the day when land division will be of very small dimensions in any county. Therefore, it behoves us to be very careful only to take land in certain very exceptional circumstances, and that when it is taken the Land Commission will try to pay as reasonable a price as they possibly can to the person dispossessed. They should also try to ensure that the new tenants will work the land at least as well as the person from whom it is taken.

Eamonn O Ciosáin

D'réir an méid cainnte a bhí ar siubhal ag Teachtaí indiu beidh talamh gan chíos ón mbliadhain seo amach againn go léir. Ní mór an bhaint atá ag Ciarraighe le roinnt na talmhan mar ná fuil aon fheirmeacha móra ann le roinnt ach má's seadh tá portach ann le tógaint agus le roinnt agus ní thuigim ca'na thaobh ná deanfaí é sin go mór mhór san am atá againn anois nuair atá gual ana-dhaor agus nuair atá muinntir áirithe ar imeall an phortaigh agus gan aon mhóin le fághail acu.

Bhíos ag eisteacht leis an dTeachta Benéid á rádh go raibh súil againn-ne ar na bínnsí seo go dtabhairfí talamh do mhuinntir na tíre ar fad. Aon duine a chreid é sin nó a chreideann é ní fuláir nó is amadán é. 'Sé a theastuigheann uainn ná go dtabharfaí talamh dos no daoine go bhfuil gabháltaisí beaga acu agus dá mbeadh aon fhuighleach ann go dtabharfaí talamh do dhaoine gan talamh. Nílim ar aon aigne leis na daoine a deireann gur ceart talamh a thabhairt do dhaoine go bhfuil airgead acu, sé sin do mhic feirmeóirí, mar ba chóir dóibh sin bheith in ánn talamh a cheannach dóibh féin.

Do bhí Teachtaí ag cur síos ar an aistriú atá á dhéanamh ó áiteanna san Ghaelteacht go Contae na Midhe. Deineann siad amach ná raghaidh sé chun socair na tíre. Is mór an costas atá ag baint leis gan dabht, ach éinne a chuimhneodh ar an scéal do buailfí isteach 'na aigne go mbfhéidir gur mó an costas do'n Stát iad d'fhágaint mar a bhfuilid mar níor mhór iad a chothughadh sa Ghaelteacht nuair ná beadh aon rud eile acu agus sa deire thiar thall bfhéidir gur mó a bheadh caillte dá bhfáfaí iad san áit 'na bhfuilid.

Ní fheicim cad na thaobh na glacfadh eigirí Choimisiún na Talmhan comhairle ó na Teachtaí Dála, mar t'réis an tsaoghail nuair a toghtar daoine tugtar úghdarás dóibh ó na daoine agus aon nídh a dheineann siad nó a mholann siad is ar son na ndaoine é.

Ní ceart bheith ró-throm ar Choimisiún na Talmhan maidir le roinnt na talmhan mar ní mór dóibh bheith cúramach óir aon rud a dheineann siad ní fuiriste é chur ar neamh-nídh.

Iarraim arís ar an Aire agus ar Choimisiún na Talmhan na portaigh a roinnt i gCiarraighe Thuaidh agus móin a chur ar fághail dos na daoine.

Mr. Mullen

Practically all the speakers who have already spoken appear to think that some decision that cannot be revoked has been taken in order to slow down the division of land. I hope that that is not the case. The burden of my remarks will be a more urgent appeal to get up steam in the Land Commission rather than to reverse engines at this stage. I think that in the present world crisis it would be a distinct benefit to certain parts of this country, including the constituency which I represent, the County Dublin, if a change in the agricultural economy to a more equitable distribution of the land in the County Dublin and in the eastern counties were effected. By that change there would be a distinct benefit to the country generally, to agriculturists and to the constituency. I found it a very sorry sight to see in some of those eastern counties derelict farms not producing food, not even feeding cattle, while the prices of vegetables at present to the ordinary consumer are exorbitant. It might be correct to describe the prices of vegetables at present as famine prices. That is what they are to the man on the dole or the worker earning a small wage. It is notorious in my constituency that even during this spring, in certain cases, the cultivation has not been undertaken not alone on these farms that might be described as derelict, but upon other farms. I would like to ask the Department and the Minister to get a list of those places with a view to their acquisition and distribution amongst people who would work them. In the northern end of my constituency there are some outstanding examples of what should be done by the man who will avail of the opportunity of intensive cultivation. In that part of the county men are taking the last ounce out of the soil in the matter of food production.

Land distribution, generally speaking, has been fairly reasonable in my constituency and in the northern end of the county. I would draw attention to one shining example which is to be seen in the Rush district, where practically every square perch of the soil has been tilled, and where, because the people are industrious, even although the amount of land they individually possess is small, they are happy, moderately prosperous, and moderately content as a result of their industry. My plea for these people and the people in the adjoining district is that every available acre of land that could be distributed in that area should be distributed in the full knowledge that the greatest profit possible will be taken out of the soil, and that the State and the people will benefit from land distribution there.

It is very heartening to notice during this war crisis that there is a quickening of interest not alone among tillage farmers, but amongst people in my constituency who pursued the out-worn obsolete system of the prairie and who have been in the past content to warm their backs to the fire while they looked out at their cattle fattening on the land, for which they received inflated prices. They lived in luxury for a while, but then came deflation and depression, and these men found themselves not unnaturally without the will to work, but without means in very many cases. These people naturally slipped into the "pay no rates" and "pay no annuities" camps. Then they raised the cry: "Call off your sheriffs, because the farmers cannot pay." It is heartening, I say, to see a quickening of interest amongst those people who, voluntarily or compulsorily, are endeavouring to make use of their farms this year. So far as the future goes, my contention is that the Government and the Department of Lands should accelerate the division this year of any land they have in hands, and that there should be no slowing up in the acquisition or division of land in the future. I am speaking personally in this matter. I believe that we will need more food produced in this country and that, even if there is intensive cultivation, there will not be over-production. I believe it is usual for live-stock production to increase where you have crop production, and that, no matter what course this war may take and what kind of a world we may be living in when it is over, there will be a profitable market for any surplus produce we may possess.

The migration policy has been mentioned by many previous speakers. I think that most of the attacks on the migrants were prompted by unworthy motives, chiefly of the jealous type. I think that these attacks represent a doctrine that it is very dangerous to preach. It is only a step from trying to form county borders to trying to form parochial borders and creating conflicts between parishes. I could, for instance, visualise in North County Dublin, if a farm was being divided in Rush, Swords or Finglas, that applicants from Donabate would be objected to. That is not the type of doctrine that any responsible public man should either sponsor or encourage. I think the people have too much sense to encourage it, but if it were encouraged, it would bring us back eventually to the old faction fights and, if I might add, to futility.

I heard some time ago of an interesting scheme designed for the Howth district which may be in the archives of the Land Commission or in the possession of some official. That scheme visualised a colony of small holders or market gardeners. I would be very much interested to see that resurrected because you have the material in that district. There are a great many people in that district who are interested in gardening, in fact they might be called expert gardeners.

In connection with that area, there is another point I should like to mention to the Minister in the hope that, in collaboration with the Department of Agriculture, he may be able to do something to remedy a very peculiar situation which I discovered existing there this year in reference to the allotment scheme. In an area of that type, where you have a population of approximately 5,000, you have the very large number of 70 people, mostly unemployed, who are seeking allotments. We discovered that it was impossible to get the land in that district to provide these men with the allotments. Would it be possible in some way to render less cumbersome the compulsory acquisition of that land at a time like this when the production of food would mean so much for these unemployed people?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I should like to remind the Deputy that the question of allotments is one for the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Local Government.

Mr. Mullen

I mentioned it so that the Minister in collaboration with the Department of Agriculture might make it easier to acquire the land compulsorily. One of the previous speakers mentioned something about the cost of acquiring land. The way in which I look at that is, that considering the amount of our investments abroad, the sound Budget which has been introduced, and the sound state of our finances, the country could afford to finance further land acquisition and division, and that the investment of money in land at home in the present international situation will be far better than investment in a foreign country.

Mr. Hurley

During this debate statements have been made that there is not sufficient land to go round amongst all the people who are looking for it. But surely there are thousands of acres which could be acquired and some thousands of acres in the hands of the Land Commission which have not been divided. I think it is only fair that the Minister in his reply should give us definitely the policy of his Department with regard to the acquisition and division of land. It was stated, I think, in this House when the war started that the Land Commission would definitely slow up. I hope that that policy is not to be continued. The Minister has been exhorted from all parts of the House not to continue that policy. It was also stated that civil servants engaged in the Land Commission had been transferred to other Departments. I regard the work done in the Land Commission as more important than work done in any other Government Department. Therefore, I think there should not be any slowing up, but that there should be a speeding up in the division of the land on hands, and the acquisition of land which is available.

In my constituency, as was stated by Deputy Corry last night, there are thousands of acres that can be acquired. He mentioned one case in which I am interested and that is the Clarke estate at Rostellan where a big number of people were disemployed owing to the death of the owner. That land has since been occupied by graziers. That is an estate which could be taken over, and there are many others which could be acquired. As far as the acquisition and division of land are concerned, therefore, I want to get from the Minister a definite statement with regard to the policy of his Department.

I want also to make an appeal to the Minister to consider the claims of cottier tenants where land is being divided. There was a good deal of talk about cottier tenants in this House and in the country a few years ago, and the type of people who were regarded as suitable for receiving allotments of land came under the headings of uneconomic holders, landless men, and cottier tenants. During this debate, however, I have heard no mention of the claims of the cottier tenants. The uneconomic holders and the landless men have been mentioned, but there has been no mention of the cottier tenants. I hold that the cottier tenant has been very badly treated under the Purchase Act which was brought in to help him, and I hope he is not going to be as badly treated under the future policy of the Land Commission.

There are cottier tenants who are so industrious that they have acquired a certain amount of property and they are very anxious to acquire a little land where land is being divided. I have a letter here from one man who made an application for a portion of land on an estate which was being divided near him. He has only one acre of land. He says in his letter:

"I keep two cows, four calves, two sows, a horse, and also a colt. I find it very difficult to get grazing for them. I must also take a few acres for root crops, and I find it very hard to get them."

There is a man who, in my opinion, would make a very suitable allottee, a man who is sure to prove himself very useful in a land division scheme. My opinion of the three types of people who got land, uneconomic holders, landless men, and cottier tenants, is that the cottier tenant is as good, if not the better of the three classes. He has proved his worth on schemes already in operation, and I hope will not be forgotten in the future policy of the Land Commission. As there are difficulties enough in his way when acquiring land, his path should be smoothed now. It should not be forgotten that many of the cottier tenants are the sons and grandsons of people who were cleared off estates, but were fortunate enough to get labourers' cottages. There seems to be a kind of social ostracism of labourers, because, when people talk of farmers and labourers, the labourer seems to be put on a lower status than the farmer. I look upon people who work on the land as co-workers in that industry, and they should be treated equally. I appeal to the Minister on behalf of the cottier tenants. The statements I have made can be substantiated, that where these men got land they proved themselves useful workers. The ability of those who are applying for land now can be inquired into. In the case I mentioned the man got back this reply:

"Tá orm admháil go bhfuarthas do litir de'n 5/4/1940 agus a rá go bhfeicfear isteach sa scéal."

That is all the poor man got. I suppose he will hear no more about it. I ask the Minister to speed up the division of land in the south-east portion of County Cork, where estates are in a derelict condition. The land could be usefully divided amongst people who are willing to work it. I want to put these questions to the Minister: What exactly is the policy of the Land Commission, and what is its policy towards cottier tenants?

Mr. Cosgrave

Last year I drew the Minister's attention to the fact that there is a Parliamentary Secretary in this Department, and that, as the law stands, his administrative duties are very much lighter now than what they were a few years ago when only a Parliamentary Secretary or a Minister was in charge. Is the Land Commission responsible for the selection of allottees and for the selection of the land to be acquired? Mention has been made of the price of land, which varies from £6 to £13 an acre.

I doubt very much whether the Land Commissioners or the Minister, if they had land, would be satisfied to give it at that price. While we are in the position of making up our minds whether this is a social service or a development or a new policy, whatever is being done is being done at someone else's expense. Even though it be law, if the law is unjust we have no right to be generous at other people's expense. I find that the salaries, wages and other items in respect to this service amount to close on £400,000 a year—to be correct, to something over £370,000. Assuming that one-third of that would be devoted towards administration and the collection of land annuities, the other portion, two-thirds would be in respect of the acquisition and distribution of land. Taking the average distribution of land over the last six years, from 1932-33 to 1937-38, the total number of people who acquired land through the distribution system comes to about 30,000, or an average of 5,000 a year. If we apportion the cost of the service—assuming my figures are correct—it would mean that each allottee has cost £50 of State money in respect of salaries, wages, allowances and so on. That is fairly expensive. A Deputy who spoke a few moments ago knew nothing apparently, about the finance of land acquisition, because he thought our credit was involved in it. It is involved to the extent that every acquisition waters our credit, as we are simply issuing more paper. It is paper that is issued in respect of the acquisition of land. Land acquisition in pre-1933-34 days was much less expensive, as the ordinary purchaser pays under the Land Act now only half the annuity, so that the cost to the State is getting heavier. If the work was well done, even though it was particularly costly, it might not matter, but we are handing on to the future the responsibility for payment of some of the cost.

The suggestion made by Deputy Childers was rather a good one, that there should be a review of the work done, to see how far it has been a success, to see whether the selections made have been ones that were in the interest of the country, and whether this whole policy is one that can be justified by the huge sum spent on it. We are spending a quarter of a million pounds yearly on salaries and wages, and we are entitled to see what the results have been. We have not got any picture regarding the results. The whole story here seems to be how much land has been distributed. Even on that question it should be remembered that the real reason for land distribution from the commencement was to make up the uneconomic holdings, of which we had a huge number.

It was generally considered that they had first claim in respect of the national economy. The Minister answered a Question in the House last year regarding the number and area of enlarged existing uneconomic holdings, and the new accommodation and turbary, other than farms, provided in the division of untenanted land under the Land Acts, 1933 to 1936, and also in each of the financial years 1922-23 to 1938-39. The figures for the latter year are not yet available, but the return runs to 1937-38. Apart altogether from the question of its being a sounder policy to build up the uneconomic holders, it is a much less expensive policy. It is one that is constructive and one that we would expect particular attention would be paid to. Looking over the returns we got from the Minister in respect of the enlargement in the first instance, and new holdings in the second instance, and the new accommodation and turbary, other than farms, I find that the enlargements consisted of the distribution of 187,646 acres. The new holdings absorb 193,475 acres. Apparently, we are distributing more land in new holdings than we are in building up uneconomic holdings; 18,280 persons got parts of the 187,000 acres, and 8,235 persons got holdings in respect of the 193,475 acres. If we were to take the suggestion made by a speaker on the opposite side, that applicants should get 40 acres, we would not be able to give new holdings to more than 4,800 persons in respect of that acreage of 193,000. The same speaker said that there had been an improvement as regards the number of acres allotted to each person in recent years. The Minister, in answer to a Question, stated that the figures for 1932-3, 1933-4 and 1934-5 were inclusive of accommodation plots, and a detailed classification was not made in respect of those years. Taking the average, I find that the acreage was: 1932-3, 29; 1933-4, 25; and 1934-5, 27. Whether the classification mentioned had anything to do with it or not—I do not believe it had—the average for 1935-6 was almost 18, for 1936-7 almost 23, and for 1937-8 almost 26. It would not appear from that that there has been much improvement, unless the improvement has taken place from 1935-6 to date. This is one of the most expensive services in the State. In respect of actual outgoings —inescapable outgoings, as I might describe them—we have £560,000 for improvement of estates and £373,000 for salaries—almost £1,000,000. Taking an average of 5,000 persons, that is fairly expensive as it stands.

Deputy Bennett raised a question which I was waiting for some agriculturist to raise. That is in connection with the fences I do not know whether the policy of the Minister is to do away with hunting or not. But we have this big bank, with a trench on either side, so that it is impossible to get horses to stand on top of it. A very intelligent animal will simply interview the bank with his hind legs, and then get across. In some cases accidents have taken place. Occasionally, we find barbed wire is used. If there is one thing likely to interfere with hunting more than another, it is barbed wire. I do not think that it is the intention of the Minister or of the Land Commission to do away with hunting, but if we have more of these banks and of this barbed wire, it is unlikely we will have a continuance of it. The divisions, such as they are, are unsightly. In the West they are much better. Very often the upper portion of the bank consists of loose stones. When the ground is level on both sides there is no danger. On one or two occasions I have seen these banks battered down by a few horses. Either the hunt or the farmer was at considerable expense in building up the banks again, because they consist of loose clay and are not built to last for any length of time.

The whole question in connection with this service is how far it is a success. Everybody wishes it to be a success, but we never had anything more in the way of information than a description by the Minister on the last occasion of a few selected farms. It was obvious that the persons who had got the lands in those cases had means of their own. Otherwise, the land would appear to have been a gold-mine. It is not an examination such as that that is required. There would be no objection, I think, on the part of members of any Party if, when the distribution of land takes place, those who have lost their employment on the estates acquired should receive holdings. But the general policy ought to be directed to building up the uneconomic holdings. It is desirable as far as possible to deal with the uneconomic holdings in the immediate vicinity of where the land is situated. Whatever may be said in connection with the credit of the State, the soundness of the Budget, and all that has been accomplished, the fact is that this is relatively and actually a poor country. It cannot afford expensive experiments. It cannot afford extravagance and waste. So far as the policy of this Department is concerned, it would appear as if there was a bottomless purse from which money could be drawn. That is not so. Neither have we inexhaustible supplies of land. From the trend of the discussion of this Vote from the opposite side of the House it would appear as if there were only two classes in this country—the small farmers and the large farmers. The large farmers almost impede the progress of the prosperity of the country according to those Deputies. Evidently they forget that it is on the large farms employment is given, that the number of agricultural labourers is very large, that it is not possible to provide employment for them by distribution of land, and that there is not enough land to allow for that. In consequence, it is desirable to maintain some of the larger farms where employment will be obtainable. The sum and substance of my contribution to this debate is that this appears to be a very costly service, that we have no information regarding the success of the land distribution by means of the survey which has been suggested, and no information generally as to whether the selection of the allottees has been on a sound basis.

Mr. Victory

I have listened to the debate on this Estimate for two days, and I have also listened to the debate on the Budget. I am convinced that an atmosphere may be created which will mean that we have seen the end of what was known as the flight from the land. That may have been brought about by the emergency in Europe. Whether that be so or not I notice that there is very faint praise, generally speaking, for the activities of the Land Commission. I am sorry that my remarks in that direction cannot be what I would wish them to be. In my constituency more than eight years ago attention was drawn to an estate known as the English estate. About three years ago there was a scheme prepared, and some two years ago a Land Commission official interviewed prospective allottees. Nothing has since been done in connection with that property. In the same constituency there are several other estates that were inspected years ago and, so far, there has been no decision made by the Land Commission. I suggest that farms on which the tillage quota has not been carried out should be immediately earmarked, and the Land Commission should at once set about the acquisition of such farms in order that they may be used in the national interest.

There are many districts in the country, and some in my own constituency, where there is no turbary available, yet there are hundreds of acres of bog lying idle. Some two years ago I had a bog inspected, known as the Wilson Slator. Some time afterwards an inspector came down, and he proceeded to interview applicants, of whom there were hundreds. From that day to this there was not one move made. We see advertisements in the newspapers suggesting that the people should cut more turf, as it will be needed. What is the Land Commission doing to encourage more turf cutting? Deputy Cosgrave said that this was one of the most expensive services in the State. I suppose it is, but that is only as it should be, because, after all, the land represents 70 per cent. of the upkeep of the whole show, and never was it more necessary than now, because we are facing an extraordinary situation. If we consider the present continental conflict, we do not know what will happen.

I feel that the Land Commission should definitely give people the impression that they mean to proceed with the acquisition and the division of land. The feeling is gradually growing throughout the country that the Land Commission officials are endeavouring to leave themselves a job for life; that they are going too slowly and that the work will not end in their lifetime. Deputy Cosgrave mentioned certain large farms. Does he consider that the owners of a farm on which rates or annuities have not been paid for four years should be left in possession of it, when beside it. We have people on holdings with a valuation of £3 and £4? In the national interest I think this situation should be immediately remedied. I appeal to the Minister to proceed with the acquisition and division of farms which have not complied with the tillage regulations in the present emergency. I regard that as a fair test whether the land is or is not being used in the national interest.

Mr. L.J. Walsh

Perhaps I should apologise for intervening in this debate, being very largely an urban representative. To begin with, I want to enter a solemn protest against the slander which has been levelled against the people included in the migratory schemes in County Meath. The presence in this House of two lady Deputies precludes me from expressing —to my own satisfaction, at all events—in the only language a man who can level such a slander could readily understand, my opinion on such uncalled-for statements. I am sorry he is absent. Possibly I would not be permitted to proceed much further.

An Ceann Comhairle

That is possible.

Mr. L.J. Walsh

I have been asked to mention a matter to the Minister for Lands concerning the constituency I represent, particularly the southern portion of it. I have been asked to draw his attention to the serious situation which exists in one and a half parishes abutting on the boundaries of the town of Drogheda. I am sorry I cannot agree with Deputy Victory that there is not a flight from the land. From inquiries I have made there during the last two weeks I have discovered that from one parish no less than 32 young men under 30 years of age have fled, all of them the sons of farmers.

That is a very serious state of affairs, having regard to the fact that in the vicinity of the area from which these men have fled we have no less than 94 uneconomic holdings with valuations ranging from £2 10s. to £8. As most Deputies who are interested in the land are aware, the valuations in the eastern counties, particularly In areas adjacent to important provincial towns, are pretty high compared with inland rural districts. I find that we have in that district. no less than nine defaulters under the compulsory tillage scheme, and these nine defaulters hold no less than 460 acres of land between them. In that area also we have five holdings comprising 1,940 acres.

I do not get up in this House to make statements I cannot stand over. I have here a list containing the names, addresses and ages of the people to whom I refer, the people in one parish. What I have stated with regard to that one parish applies equally with regard to a number of parishes adjacent to the town of Drogheda. If I were an artist I would be very much inclined to picture the Minister for Lands rather as a Minister for grazing. The Land Commission have taken over a considerable holding convenient to the parish to which I refer, and they are letting the land in conacre. Some two years ago the Land Commission acquired that land, which is known as the Woodcock estate. Surely it is not the Government's policy to buy up land for the purpose of handing it over to the auctioneer to let it in conacre to the people who are justly entitled to it and who live on some of the uneconomic holdings to which I have referred? I appeal to the Minister to induce his Department to expedite the division of the lands in their possession.

Having regard to the conflagration that is raging on the Continent, and the advantages which, in such unfortunate circumstances, are offered to the agricultural community in this country, I think something should be done to speed up land division and give the agriculturists in this island home of ours an opportunity to go into production on a scale that would very largely replace in the British market the £32,000,000 worth of agricultural produce which has been lost to that market. I am not a financier, perhaps luckily, having regard to the times. I contend that this country could well afford to invest some more millions in acquiring land and settling the people of the country on it, and giving them an opportunity to produce the latent wealth of the nation in order to enrich it. It is my view at all events, if I would be in order in making the suggestion, that our friends, across the water would be well advised to invest £10,000,000 or £20,000,000 out of the thousands of millions per week that are going away up in smoke at the present time, in giving us back a little of our own, and putting us in the position of being able to assist them in the crisis through which they are passing. The benefit would be a mutual one for all concerned.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Minister to conclude.

Mr. Derrig

Deputy Walsh, I am sure, will be gratified to learn that, I think, about £23,000,000 have been utilised in financing land purchase here, and a very considerable sum, I think about £6,500,000, for the purchase of untenanted land. If the Deputy considers these figures, and the amount provided each year since a native Government came into being for the service of the Land Commission, he will have some idea of the enormous amount of money that has gone into Land Commission work. As regards the letting of land, the Land Commission make every effort to do that. We were particularly anxious to do so this year in the case of land in the hands of the Land Commission which could not be divided during the present season. As Deputies know, there are two seasons, the spring and the fall, for land division, and that potential allottees very often will not take land at any other time of the year. We made special arrangements this year in particular, but it is not always possible, even up to the last few weeks of the early dividing season, to say precisely what land will be divided and what will not. Obviously, in a very large organisation, such as the Land Commission controls, you will have schemes brought to a certain point. Everybody interested, including the inspectors, will have considered it probable that these schemes will be brought into operation in the present season, but difficulties may arise, either with some of the allottees or with the Land Commissioners when they examine the schemes. They may not be quite satisfied with them. Various difficulties and various delays may arise which will prevent schemes which one had anticipated would be put into operation from being carried out. Consequently, they had to be postponed. I am afraid it is inevitable that we will continue to have that.

We have to try to facilitate the local people as far as we can in the letting of these lands. Oftentimes it is not possible to let land in such small parcels as will please those people, even though from the human point of view they might be the people most likely to need it. They may not, however, be able to pay the current price for it. I have had some complaints myself. On examination, I have found that the lands were sold by public auction. The auctioneer and the inspector had tried to accommodate the small local applicants as far as possible, but the latter were not able to pay the current market rate.

When the war broke out the Government, in their review of the whole situation, considered very carefully the position as regards land settlement. They decided for the present at any rate they would not ask the Land Commission to undertake new proceedings for land acquisition. We will continue with all the proceedings in respect of which commitments have been entered into. As I have already explained in the House, these commitments represent a very large acreage of land on hands. We had, first, large blocks of land in the hands of inspectors preparatory to the preparation of a scheme. We had, secondly, large blocks of land gazetted which would go through the Land Court in the ordinary way, but, as I have said, the Government decided to concentrate for the present on clearing up these two categories. For the present, we decided that we would not undertake, as I have said, new proceedings. There is, of course, a very large area of land in addition to the two categories I have mentioned which has been inspected. Either a preliminary inspection has been carried out or a more formal inspection for suitability and price. There is a large reserve of land there, but for the present the Government are not going ahead with its acquisition. We have quite enough work for the present in the two categories I have spoken of: first, the lands that were ready, or almost ready, for a scheme, and, secondly, the lands which we hope will go through the Land Commission Court within a reasonable time. When the Government have reviewed the position, as I hope they will, I am sure they will have regard to the fact that it will be necessary perhaps to take up some land which has already been inspected in order to ensure that the normal programme of land division will be carried out, even under war conditions. I cannot, of course, anticipate what the Government's decision may be. In the past financial year, in spite of the difficulties created by the emergency, 39,000 acres have been divided. That figures compares favourably with the amount of land that was divided in the previous year, and with the amount divided under the late Government. The reserve of land available for division is, of course, decreasing. There is also the question of compulsory tillage. My two predecessors, I think, gave assurances in the House—this has always been the policy of the Government—that land which was being properly utilised would not be interfered with. During the present year, of course, practically everyone will try to use his land to the best advantage. That must have an effect on the operations of the Land Commission.

Deputy Cosgrave called attention to the very heavy expenditure which takes place under this service. He was quite justified, because it is one of the most costly Departments of the State. I was rather surprised, however, that one of his followers, on the first day the Estimate was under discussion, disapproved very strongly of any reduction in expenditure. The items in the Vote are only a portion of the expenditure. As I said in my opening remarks, there is the finance of land purchase generally, which, as Deputy Cosgrave pointed out, throws a very substantial burden on the State, increased by the halving of the annuity under the 1933 Act.

In actual fact, no economy has been effected in the work of land resettlement during the past financial year. The amount spent, £644,000, was only very slightly less, I think, than the average of £647,000 spent on land improvement works during each of the three preceding years. There is, therefore, no question of shutting down, as some Deputies contend. But there is regard in the special emergency conditions to the difficulties of the situation. For example, during the past five years the Land Commission has divided 318,000 acres amongst 25,000 allottees. Some Deputies who, I venture to say, have very little knowledge of rural conditions or of the work that the Land Commission is carrying out, spoke in this House as if the activities of the Land Commission should go on for ever. The fact is that, because of provisions becoming more drastic as time goes on, under the Land Acts which the Land Commission has operated during the past 17 years under a native Government, and during a very long period previously under the British, a very great amount of land has been distributed. Large parcels have been inspected, the vast bulk of them have been taken over, and the vast bulk of the work has been done. But, since the organisation has been strengthened in order to bring in every possible acre, and everything possible has been done by way of legislation and otherwise for the provision of land and the increase of staff, the reserve of land now available is greatly restricted.

In all, 1,700,000 acres have been divided since the work of land resettlement was started here by the British Government. But, having regard to the fact that a great part of the work has been completed, and that the reserve now available is limited—unless future Governments go to unheard-of lengths in reducing the standard size of holdings—we ought to have regard to how we can best utilise that reserve. Everyone would sympathise with the Deputies seeking to represent the views of their particular counties and constituencies, but in the Dáil, the National Assembly, there is also the important question: What is the best policy to pursue in the general national interest?

The Leader of the Opposition called attention briefly to very pertinent points from the financial point of view. The Government have reviewed the position of this very large and costly organisation. When we found that the war emergency had created a new situation for us, with a greatly restricted revenue, we were faced with the problem as to whether we were to reduce that organisation and deliberately cut down our programme, or endeavour to utilise the organisation to its full capacity. The Government, with the information at their disposal at the beginning of the conflict, came to the decision that I have explained—that they would go ahead with the actual commitments, and that for the present they would not touch additional lands. There is also the question, as Deputy Cosgrave said, as to whether our general policy is best in the national interest.

It was gratifying to find that the level of the debate was higher than is usual on these occasions. Instead of having Deputies reading out lists of lands in their individual constituencies which they declare the Land Commission have not acquired and have no justification for not acquiring, we had some really good observations and a certain amount of valuable advice from different points of view on the whole question of the policy of land resettlement. I am very glad that that is so. I think the more we can discuss this problem from the point of view of the general national interest and as a big national economic and social question the better it will be for the country and the better results we are likely to obtain from the very large expenditure which the State has to bear in connection with this service. The present time, as Deputy Cosgrave also suggests, is, perhaps suitable. If we continue to enjoy the peace we have had in this country since the outbreak of war, undoubtedly there will be opportunities for the Government to examine and review important questions of policy like land division. We intend to get the Land Commissioners and their advisers to look into some of the questions raised, and if we can bring about improvements within the scope of the policy laid down by the Government, well and good. I should explain in reply to Deputy Cosgrave's question as to whether the terms of the 1933 Act are being carried out as regards the Minister vis-a-vis the Land Commission that the Minister does not interfere—I do not interfere in any way in the excepted matters laid down in the 1933 Act. These are wholly and entirely questions for the Land Commission.

Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney was not quite right in saying that the Minister had no control in the setting up of the Gaeltacht colony. The Land Commission is carrying out a policy laid down by the Government. The Minister does not interfere in the work of the Land Commission, but he is responsible to the House, to the Government and to the country for the general direction of policy, and within the ambit of that policy it is within the Minister's power to guide, and it is proper for him to direct the Land Commission to set up Gaeltacht colonies or to discontinue such schemes. But there is no question of the Minister interfering in the purchase of land for the purpose of the Land Acts or in the selection of migrants or in the determination of other questions in connection with the actual working of the details of the scheme. The general policy is laid down by me, and the Land Commission work on that as far as possible.

In my opinion this question should be treated as a great national issue. We should all try to find some point of general agreement upon which the policy could be worked out with the support of all Parties in the House. As to individual Deputies who from year to year have shown their interest in this matter and have been urging the Land Commission to speed up its activities, I rather regret that some of these Deputies seem to treat the matter as entirely a parish question or a county question. I think that is a great mistake, just the same as treating it as a political issue is a great mistake.

If it were treated as a political issue, and not primarily as a social and economic one, I think the results would be very bad indeed, and that would probably recoil in due course upon the heads of those who are responsible for regarding the policy as a political one. We should aim at giving land only to deserving and suitable allottees, for example, and when, under the policy laid down, the Land Commission inspector draws up his scheme, he has very good reasons for it. He is working within the policy laid down by the Government, he has had the advantage of interviewing the applicants, of seeing their circumstances, and acquiring a certain amount of local knowledge. He then prepares his scheme, and it has to be checked by his official superiors and by the Commissioners themselves. There is no ground, therefore, for Deputies assuming that there is any question of political favouritism in the actual preparation of the land schemes. I do not interfere, nor does any other political person, with the inspectors in the carrying out of their work.

The question of migration has been referred to somewhat critically, and I believe that most of the critical remarks were based either on ignorance of the facts or a complete misunderstanding of the policy that the Land Commission is carrying out in this matter. I should like to take an opportunity of putting this question of the relief of congestion in its proper perspective as I see it in regard to this whole question of land resettlement. The Government consider that the relief of congestion is the big question, the fundamental problem, and it is on the basis of concentrating upon the relief of congestion that we are carrying out the policy of land resettlement. In order to appreciate the problem, I think we ought to get a picture of its extent and its nature. I think if Deputies consider the nature of the problem they will agree that, as in the past, the object of the future policy in regard to land resettlement should be primarily to relieve congestion.

Colonel Ryan

I should like to draw the attention of the Minister to the cost of that migration. I quite agree with migration; it is the cost I am concerned with.

Mr. Derrig

I intend to deal with that. The Deputy is concerned with the cost of moving the migrant from the poorest areas in Ireland to the midlands, but, apparently, he is not concerned with the cost of paying for the settling of a landless man on the land in his native county. The Deputy has mentioned a figure of £1,250. It is quite true that that figure of £1,250 applies to the original experiment, which was experimental in the first case, and which was carried out in difficult circumstances. The people who were migrated were of the poorest class, and it was costly undoubtedly. The future will tell whether it was worth the cost or not. Deputies who have condemned the experiment as being a failure know nothing whatever about it. I am quite convinced, and I am prepared to stand over it, that it has been an absolute success. The Land Commission are quite satisfied with it. I challenge those who have criticised the migrants as failures, to go down and examine the position themselves. If they are then able to substantiate their easy condemnations from practical observation of what is going on on these migrant holdings, well and good. The idea that a responsible man can get up in the national Assembly and condemn a scheme of that kind without having gone to any trouble whatever to get the most elementary facts about it, passes comprehension.

The fact is that these Gaeltacht colonizing schemes or migration schemes are only the smaller portion, so far as numbers are concerned, of the work of migration carried out by the Land Commission. The ordinary group migration, which is the usual and general type of migration, is being carried out at present at a cost in the way of additional assistance of about £140 on an average. It is costing in the group migration scheme £140, let us remember, and let us forget the figure of £1,250 only obtained in a particular scheme, in an initial scheme, and on a limited scale at that. Let us remember that the ordinary group migration scheme, which is the usual type of settlement of the migrant in his new holding, is costing about £140 on an average more than the allotment and settlement of a landless man on a holding would cost.

Colonel Ryan

I should like a little more explanation from the Minister, as I am very interested in this matter. I do not want to be controversial about it. I do not understand the Minister, and I should like a clearer expression of opinion from the Minister as to the cost.

Mr. Derrig

If the Deputy listens he may be able to understand me, and if not, he can read afterwards what I am about to say. It is only two years ago since the Government received a report from an inter-departmental committee on the question of seasonal migration which they set up after the Kirkintilloch disaster. The committee examined the economic problem in what are known as the congested districts, and I intend to quote for the information of the House, and in order to have it on the official records, some facts which were brought out and which a great many Deputies, not having a knowledge of the congested districts, do not seem to be aware of.

An Ceann Comhairle

Will the Minister state what document he is quoting from?

Mr. Derrig

The Report of the InterDepartmental Committee on Seasonal Migration to Great Britain, 1937-38, page 24 and following pages. The report states:

"By Section 46 of the Irish Land Act, 1909, the area of the congested districts was greatly extended. The new area embraced the whole of Donegal, the whole of the province of Connacht (that is to say, the counties of Leitrim, Sligo, Roscommon, Mayo, and Galway), the whole of County Kerry, parts of County Clare (that is to say, the rural districts of Ballyvaughan, Ennistymon, Kilrush, Scariff, Tulla, and Kildysart) and parts of County Cork (that is to say, the rural districts of Bantry, Castletown Bere, Schull and Skibbereen). This area covered 7,658,114 acres, or 44 per cent. of the area of the twenty-six counties, with a population of 1,122, 441. The present population is 905,335, equivalent to 30.5 per cent. of the population of the twenty-six counties."

Then the report continues:

"... only 16.04 per cent. of this population is resident in towns and villages with a population of 1,500 persons. The corresponding figure for the rest of the country is 46.4 per cent., .... It will be noticed, for example, that farmers and their relatives constitute 66.4 per cent. of the population gainfully employed in South Kerry, 66.2 per cent. in West Galway (including the city of Galway), 71.1 per cent. in East Galway, 74 per cent. in West Donegal, and 78.2 per cent. in West Mayo."

Then the report continues:

"Although the proposed area embraces 43.96 per cent. of the total area of the country and 30.49 per cent. of the population, it accounts for only 34 per cent. of the arable land in the country and 26.3 per cent. of the total rateable valuation. Vast tracts of land in the area are merely bogs, moors and uncultivable mountain sides, and much of the remainder consists of land so poor in quality as barely to repay cultivation. Further more, although nearly 84 per cent. of the population of the area is dependent on the land, only 53.2 per cent. of the acreage can be classed as arable land. In the remainder of the country, not only is the proportion of the population dependent on the land much smaller but the percentage of arable land is much higher at 80.1 per cent. Even these figures do not convey a full idea of the inferior quality of the land as compared with the rest of the country, because the large percentage of the land which, under the pressure of economic necessity, has been brought into cultivation in the west and is classed as arable land, would probably be classed as inferior land in other parts of the country. The general result is that an unduly high proportion of the agricultural holdings in the western counties are below economic standard and incapable of affording a livelihood to their present occupiers."

It goes on to say that most of the occupiers of these holdings of less than 15 acres provide a livelihood for their families in other ways besides returns which they get from the little holdings. Paragraph 48 says:—

"In most of the districts in which extreme congestion of this kind is found, the problem is complicated by the fact that there is no land available in the immediate neighbourhood which would enable the existing small holdings to be enlarged. In others, the problem created by the size of the holdings is intensified by the circumstance that many holdings consist of isolated patches, sometimes amounting to 10, 12 or even more in number, scattered here and there, often over a very wide area, in such a way as to render farming of any kind almost impossible."

The report goes on to examine the work of the Congested Districts Board. Paragraph 56 states:—

"The Congested Districts Board and the Estates Commissioners, as such, were abolished by 1923, and their functions were taken over by the Land Commission. Land resettlement with a view to relieving congestion was then to a great extent discontinued, and the officials were transferred to the work of acquisition and division of untenanted lands."

The figures following I have brought up-to-date. In the nine congested counties it is estimated that 8,000 new holdings were allotted from 1923 to March 31st, 1940, and of these 1,400 were allotted to migrants and as exchange holdings. In the 17 non-congested counties it is estimated that 12,000 new holdings were allotted to the 31st March, 1940, and of these some 340 and 1,400 respectively were allotted to migrants from the congested districts and non-congested districts.

I am very glad the leader of the Opposition emphasised in the course of his remarks a very important point, that the primary object of land resettlement should be to increase the size of uneconomic holdings and, as far as possible, to try to make them economic. The figures I have read out show that in actual fact, a considerable amount of attention, and a considerable diversion of effort, as compared with the pre-1923 position, when there was a special authority to deal with the problem, has gone on, and as a result it cannot be claimed that the problem of relieving congestion has in fact received the main share of attention. Those who study the figures will agree that they clearly show that landless men have been very generously treated by this Government and by the last Government. The local applicants in non-congested counties have clearly received the lion's share; they have received not only a far greater number of the new holdings created, but some 20 per cent. more than were created in non-congested counties.

Colonel Ryan

May I interrupt the Minister to ask the cost of migration generally on each holding?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister should be allowed to proceed with his speech now.

Mr. Derrig

I told the Deputy that I would deal with that question later. I was pointing out that of 12,000 new holdings in non-congested counties, only 340 were allotted to migrants from congested districts. I claim that the landless men have received the lion's share, not only because of the great surplus of holdings created for their benefit, as compared with uneconomic holders, but the holdings they received have obviously been greatly superior from the point of view of view of fertility, value, and proximity to markets. I cannot see why the landless men or those who spoke for them have a grievance. I incline to the view that uneconomic holders have a grievance, particularly those in the more remote areas, who have not received the attention to which I think they were entitled, if we regard the history of this whole question as national representatives should regard it.

The position about the Gaeltacht colonies is that the idea underlying the scheme was not only to provide the owners of uneconomic farms in the Gaeltacht areas of the West with economic farms, but to give land in the eastern areas in exchange for their own holdings, and by migration to reduce the number of families living in congested areas. A new farm that is given to a colonist in the east, where there is no congestion, not only provides for a big family but ensures that the land would be well tilled, while the old farm that is given up provides additional land for adjoining uneconomic farmers in congested districts, or enables rearrangement and other improvements to be carried out. It is estimated that the migration of one colonist from a congested district on an average provides improved living conditions for at least three or four families. Particulars of a few cases of actual allottees' and migrants' holdings have been given to me. They are only samples of hundreds of cases.

Mr. McMenamin

These are not ones that were quoted last year?

Mr. Derrig

No. A holding in County Mayo of 42 acres, the maximum annuity on which was £12 7s., was used to enlarge to some extent the holdings of neighbours, with the result that five of these benefited. In another case a migrant was transferred to the Midlands and the area surrendered, 28 acres, with a poor law valuation of £10, benefited seven adjoining tenants. In another case three tenants were migrated, and as a result the holdings of five other tenants were enlarged. There are at least 40,000 uneconomic holdings in the congested districts that require rearrangement and improvement. The total number would be about 60,000, but it is estimated that of the 60,000 at least 40,000 urgently require rearrangement and improvement. These holdings are situate on estates that were purchased from the landlords by the old Congested Districts Board and by the Land Commission in order that they might improve the economic conditions prevailing. Some of the estates were purchased over 25 years ago, but nothing has yet been done. The majority of these estates are situate in remote districts, which include the Fíor-Ghaeltacht from which the migrants were taken, and as there are no untenanted lands there, the only hope of relieving congestion is by migration to suitable land to be acquired in the congested districts or in the eastern counties. Due, however, to the methods of land division carried out for many years, the amount of suitable land remaining in the congested districts is quite inadequate to deal with the relief of congestion, and it is now necessary to provide holdings in the eastern counties for a far greater number of migrants who require to be removed from the congested areas.

I now pass to a consideration of the types of estates with which the Land Commission are trying to deal in some of the more congested areas in the West. There is an estate in County Galway about which I have been asked questions in this House. It is one of the most congested in the Fíor-Ghaeltacht. There are over 300 unsold holdings on it, and, as there is no untenanted land in the area, the only means of relief for the occupiers of these holdings is by migration. Twenty-three families were migrated from the estate to Allenstown, County Meath, this year. In the townlands from which these migrants were taken there are 180 unsold holdings, the average unrevised annuity or annual sum per holding being £2 5s. 0d., the lowest annual sum being 4/2, and the highest, £5 18s. 0d. The holdings are in many scattered patches, and rearrangement, consolidation, and enlargement are only possible by means of migration. Another estate is in one of the most intensely Irish-speaking areas in County Galway—probably the poorest in the Connemara Gaeltacht. There are over 330 holdings on this estate, and the average unrevised annuity per holding is about £2, some being as low as 6/- or 7/-. The holdings are in many scattered patches, some containing 30 or more plots and many unfenced. As there is no untenanted land in the vicinity, the only method by which improvement, including rearrangement, consolidation, and enlargement, of the holdings can be carried out is through migration. There are similar examples in County Mayo of estates with 400 holdings where the annual average sum would be about £3, and where there are 164 tenants with an average annual sum of £2 12s. 8d. If we go to Erris, in NorthWest Mayo, we find an estate with 606 tenants, a rental of £1,894, the total unrevised annuity coming to £1,275. We find in Achill an estate with 265 tenants, a total rental of £315 and a total annuity of £228 17s. 5d., the average annuity being 17/-. They are very poor intermixed holdings with no hope of improvement except, perhaps, by migration. Most of the tenants are seasonal migratory labourers. There is an estate in West Donegal which is one of the worst in the whole country. There are 1,638 tenants and the annuities, unrevised, amount to £1,144, the average annuity being 14/-.

These are types of estates which have been in the hands of the Land Commission, which, in some cases, were in the hands of the Congested Districts Board and which have not been dealt with, and cannot be dealt with, where the rundale holdings can never be rearranged and where the present terrible position of fearful congestion must be perpetuated unless land can be got in other areas to which some of these people can be migrated. We know that migration, even from one parish to another, has met with opposition from the sons of farmers and other landless men residing in the vicinity of untenanted land. There has often been opposition, even in the more fertile areas of the congested districts counties, when migrants have been transferred into them. Even 20 years ago, this was the case. Are we to assume that, when this problem is being considered in the National Assembly, it is a case of Deputies standing up, as happened about 30 years ago in the West of Ireland when the whole question of congestion was being examined, and saying "We will see to it that all the land in our parish will go to our parishoners?" Is that the slogan and is that to be the policy which the National Assembly is to operate in dealing with this tremendous social evil?

Captain Giles

The point I raised was the cost of migration.

Mr. Derrig

Apart from the fact that investigations over a number of years have proved that, generally speaking, the migrants have made good use of their holdings while the landless men have not, having regard to the large number of uneconomic holdings and the limited amount of good land available, the principle of increasing the number of landholders in the county by the allotment of holdings to landless men must, obviously, be carefully considered in future. It seems to me—I have already expressed the view—that if the Land Commission should continue to set up new tenants on economic holdings until there is, at least, some scheme of migration or some substantial and serious effort to deal with this problem of acute congestion in these remote areas, the inhabitants of these areas may consider they are being completely neglected by the national Government in this matter. Every reasonable man will agree that, since the situation cannot be relieved without some scheme of migration, it is only fair and just that the poorer families in these areas should be entitled to a fair share of the good land of their country, even if situate in another county or parish.

Figures were given by my predecessor in the House to show that the amount of produce secured by these people from their holdings—small as Deputies find them—was very substantial, running in many cases into £200 or £300, though they were taken from the very poorest parts of the Gaeltacht. Most of them had no capital or implements or stock, or much knowledge of farming. Therefore, they had to get assistance which cost the very high average figure of £900, clear loss to the State, in respect of the initial experiment for each migrant concerned. It was necessary to provide this assistance and when you compare it with the assistance to the local landless man who was allotted a holding in a neighbouring district, the £900 was not so very serious, because the difference was only £335 in the most expensive case. In the Allenstown case, carried out during the present year, the average cost of assistance granted over and above what is normally given was £212. As I have explained in reply to Deputy Ryan, the average in respect of the group migration scheme is £140. The value of the holdings which have been surrendered by these people, in terms of resale prices, is not very large in some cases, but the value, from the point of view of the good which can be done with them when they are redistributed and when they help to enlarge the surrounding holdings, cannot, in very many cases, be measured in £ s. d. I can see no hope whatever of improving the living conditions in some of these very bad areas where congestion is greatest, and where no untenanted land is available in the vicinity to relieve it except through migration.

The amount tilled by the migrants compares very favourably indeed with the amount tilled by the local landless men. Seven, eight, and sometimes nine acres of tillage is quite usual. I think, having regard to the magnitude of the problem, although the initial expenditure was certainly very considerable, it would be most unjust to allow this very valuable experiment to be condemned on the ground of excessive cost, and to leave the public under a misapprehension. The cost of special assistance in the case of the first colony established was £305; the second one was £330, on an average; the third £326, the fourth £307, the fifth £212. Owing to the fact that a considerable reduction has been achieved in the special assistance during the present year, because we have been able to get migrants who have more knowledge and more means, and who have some resources of their own as compared with those who were brought from areas of extreme poverty in the case of the preceding schemes, the cost of special assistance per holding up to the present for all the Gaeltacht schemes is £300. That is the amount of additional average assistance that is given.

Thirty-one years ago statesmen believed that the problem of congestion, in the words of Sir Anthony McDonnell in the Report of the Royal Commission on Congestion, which sat in 1908, would be well worth a serious effort and the expenditure of huge sums of money. He estimated the total irrecoverable loss for dealing with the problem then in a substantial way would be no less than £7,000,000. If a British Under-Secretary in 1908 was prepared to recommend to the British Government that they should face this problem, which was so serious, and be prepared, if necessary, to be at a complete and total loss of £7,000,000, I think I have the right to protest against the type of propaganda that has been going on about the cost of these schemes when it is well known, and by some of those who have had the audacity to stand up here, that sums as large, if not larger, in the way of free grants, have been given to landless men, not under the present administration.

Colonel Ryan

I did not come here ——.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy is out of order.

Colonel Ryan

This is not an ordinary question——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy must sit down.

Mr. Derrig

The whole basis of this policy of land re-settlement is to try to bring the uneconomic holding up to an economic level. If Deputy Cosgrave had not emphasised the point, I had intended to call the attention of the House to certain statements by the late Mr. Hogan, the Minister who introduced the 1923 Land Act, showing clearly that the object of Government policy then and the fundamental purpose of that Act was the relief of congestion. A great many Deputies who profess to follow in his footsteps seem to have entirely forgotten that. In Volume IV of the Parliamentary Debates, columns 183-4, speaking on the Committee Stage of the Land Bill of 1923, he said:

"I want to show that the congests have first claim. There are a great many difficulties. There is the difficulty, as I pointed out before, that if you even have the land you may not have enough of land in the right place to meet that. We are taking the power to take land already purchased. I may say that only in extreme cases will we go to land already purchased, and only where we can get no other. But we are only taking these powers. Even with these powers we will not be able to deal with congestion in the West, or to deal with it in the neighbourhood of particular estates where congestion exists; there will have to be migration. You have the difficulty there that congests are not willing to leave, and the second difficulty that you have the landless man and other possible aspirants to land in the neighbourhood to which they are going, hostile to them. We must do everything we can to remove these difficulties if we are to solve this problem of congestion."

In column 185 he goes on to say:—

"Although we have to take up automatically all the land in the congested district counties I have named, yet the land will not be sufficient to deal with the congests within the congested districts."

In column 186 he says:—

"We will deal with the congests first, the evicted tenant next, and the landless men after. We cannot take the risk of leaving the congested districts as they are, and we cannot deal with the problem of any other sequence than by dealing with the congest first, then with the evicted tenants, and then the landless men."

In columns 332-33 he says:—

"As I say, this Bill deals not only with congests but with evicted tenants, and it also provides for advances to evicted men. We want to have it perfectly clear that congests have the first claim, and we want to obviate as far as possible any difficulties that are in the way of dealing with the relief of congestion. If we started out to take power, in the first instance, to acquire land compulsorily for landless men, we would find that the Land Commission would be faced with an organised demand to take land here, there and everywhere for landless men, who are more numerous and who have more influence and, perhaps, organising ability than the ordinary congested tenant, and probably before they quite realised what they were doing, the Land Commission might find itself in the position of having to acquire land for landless men which later they might find necessary for the relief of congestion."

Later he says:

"... we owe our first obligation to the congested tenants and it is made quite clear that we are prepared to withstand any pressure that may come to deal with the more numerous and less deserving class in the first instance."

I have emphasised to the House the importance of the problem from the national point of view, and the fact that legislation and policy not alone under this Government, but under our predecessors and under the British Government, have aimed at, but have not been successful in reaching a solution of this question. Anyhow, a complete solution is impossible. If we are to continue the work of land settlement, this question of congestion must occupy a very foremost place in our programme. I cannot for the life of me understand Deputies from the eastern counties who object to western migrants being brought in and given holdings, with special assistance amounting to £120 or £140 for which the State gets possession of the western holdings to enable it to relieve the congested position of two or three or perhaps four families, while at the same time they see no objection whatever to setting up local landless men on a 25-acre holding, the State bearing half the cost of the land, and practically all the cost of the buildings.

We have also heard the case made that cottage tenants should get consideration. Where possible, they will get consideration and have got it. In the case of cottiers who have been taking grass for a cow on lands which have come into the possession of the Land Commission and are about to be divided, the claims of such persons are always carefully considered. The figures, if examined, for accommodation plots, which run into thousands, and cow parks allotted under the present Administration, will show that those people have been considered and have got very fair treatment. But, of course, if it is assumed, as wiseacres outside this House claim, that the national policy should be to give every cottier five acres, then the problem of congestion must go by the board: any idea of relieving congestion or of bringing the thousands of uneconomic holdings up to a reasonable standard, even up to a £10 standard in the West of Ireland, must go by the board. You would not be able, with the amount of land which is available, to cover any appreciable proportion of the cottiers if you set out on a policy to give each one five acres. There is quite an insufficient amount of land to accommodate them. Where possible we have given large numbers of them accommodation plots. The Government will have to deal with, and have dealt with, the cottier problem in another way. If we had enough land to go round I would certainly have the greatest sympathy with the proposal, but when I know that it is extremely doubtful, at the stage at which we now find ourselves, whether the problem of relieving congestion in these very large areas along the western seaboard can be more than scratched, I fail to see why Deputies should think that those people for whom the British Government thought it necessary to set up special boards and special commissions and to pass special legislation because they considered the problem a serious one and were prepared to spend millions on it should not be considered; and, in face of the extracts I have read from the speeches of the late Mr. Hogan, should claim that it is not good national policy to see that the uneconomic holders and congests should get a fair proportion. I claim that they could legitimately assert that under the operations which have gone on for many years under a native Government that they have not got a fair proportion.

Wherever there are suitable landless men they are considered. The figures show that. They show that very large numbers of them have been set up in-new holdings in the most fertile areas in the country. While Deputies may be interested in seeing that landless men get their fair share, I would ask them to bear in mind that their recommendations should only be given to types of landless men who are likely to satisfy the policy which the Land Commission is following. The types of landless men the Land Commission will consider, if land is available, are those who have had experience in the working of land, who have some capital or some stock, and are able to show that they would make a success of the land if they received it. They should be of a good type and of high character. Bearing that in mind, and also the fact that the amount of land in the country is quite inadequate to bringing more than a proportion, and I regret to say only a small proportion, of the uneconomic and congested holdings up to a reasonable level, is it not absurd that we should have the claim made that landless men and cottage tenants have not been considered? I have given figures to show that, where possible, they have been considered. The order of priority set up in the past, followed by the late Administration and followed by us, is to give preference to uneconomic holders over landless men.

It is claimed by substantial personages in this House that the "locals" should be satisfied first. How can any responsible Deputy get up and say, as Deputy O'Higgins and Deputy Davin have suggested, that it should be the task of the Land Commission, under the circumstances I have been describing, to satisfy the "locals" first? Even if there was enough land to give very numerous holdings, would there not still be people dissatisfied? Has any Deputy ever had the good fortune of his constituents coming to him and saying that they were well pleased? Deputy Linehan has heard of cases. I have heard of cases myself, but I am afraid that, with the amount of propaganda that has been going on, that what often happens is that those who get the land, perhaps not the ones most worthy, go off and forget their benefactors, while those who have been disappointed swell the throng of the Opposition. When will the "locals" be satisfied? How on earth do Deputies think that the Land Commission could satisfy all the "locals"? There would be no work ever done by the Land Commission if we had to wait until everyone was satisfied.

Deputy O'Higgins mentioned two cases. Deputy Davin was associated with him in raising them. I think they are very poor cases indeed. I was rather surprised that the Deputies should again raise them in the House. They claim that land was allotted, in the case of the division of an estate in the County Laoighis, to a woman of over 80 years of age, that she was propped up in the bed to enable her to sign the agreement. Under a scheme for the division of the estate a plot of 4 acres, 1 rood and 2 perches was approved for allotment to the son-in-law of this old lady, giving an enlargement to an adjoining holding, the poor law valuation of which was £18 10s. This man, his wife and two grown children, a son and a daughter, reside with the old lady. He was described as a very good workman.

It was reported that the parent holding was very well worked, 12 acres being tilled, the tenant, in addition, taking grazing land on the 11 months' system and conacre tillage. As she was the recorded tenant of the parent holding, it was necessary, for the purpose of effecting the consolidation of the holding and parcel, that the latter should be allotted in her name alone. The son-in-law has been referred to by Deputy O'Higgins as "a man from a distance." He lived in the house with his wife and children at the time when the scheme was drawn up by the inspector. They lived on the holding which he worked. The old woman did not work it. Under the policy which we are operating, the old woman's holding was an uneconomic holding. It was adjacent to the land which was to be divided, and an enlargement had to be given. It does not matter what the political opinions of the persons involved may be. It is the usual Land Commission practice, and it is approved of. Yet we have two Deputies, who consider themselves responsible men, raising that matter by question and otherwise in the House, and doing it as serious men.

The second case, raised by Deputy O'Higgins, was where he said an enlargement was given to a man who already had a 50-acre farm and sold a holding the previous year. A man was allotted 13 acres 3 roods and 16 perches of an estate for the enlargement of his holding. It was situate about seven-eights of a mile away from his tenancy of 56 acres, which is described as an uneconomic holding, practically all moor and reclaimed bog, the poor law valuation being £11 5s. 0d. The inspector has reported that the man stated that he did not sell any land in the previous year, but that a small holding was sold by his sister in accordance with his deceased father's direction to provide her with a marriage portion. The inspector reports also that this man tilled four and a half acres of his land, but that he let the grazing for a short period after the crop was removed.

The Land Commission were bound under their policy to enlarge that holding, the valuation of which was £11 5s. 0d., so as to bring it up to an economic standard. That is the type of complaint made by responsible Deputies. They mentioned the case of another adjoining tenant who claimed that he should have got some share of the land. But his poor law valuation was over £20 and he could not be considered. There is also an important point, apart from the fact that persons who would not in the ordinary case be considered by the Land Commission under the rules to be suitable allottees for lands on this estate, expected later on to become beneficiaries, if through local political pressure they could ensure that the estate was divided according to their opinions. Deputies have allowed themselves to be misinformed. They have not got the facts. The inspector generally knows the facts. The important point raised by them was the question of migration. The objection to bringing people even from a neighbouring parish in the same county into this district to receive allotments was raised.

I find on examination that at least four large estates situated within one and a half or two miles of this estate have been acquired and divided by the Irish Land Commission. The total area would exceed 1,000 acres, and I am informed that there is not one deserving congest or other applicant who has not received land. They have been treated so generously that they think their relatives and all the members of their families should get land. The migrants recommended for holdings were migrated from the poorest and the most congested area in Leix. They were migrated from a district in which there was no land available for them. They are married men with families, and they were trying to exist on poor holdings. Their lands were utilised to enlarge the holdings of nine congests in the districts they left. Those who are in a position to speak independently and who without political considerations have to carry out this policy believe that the migrants were far more deserving than any of the local applicants. The policy that was laid down more than 30 years ago even by an English Board operating in this country was that it was good and sound in order to relieve congestion to have migration schemes, and to aid and assist migrants into new holdings. That is, I think, the policy the Deputies have abused by criticising. But they ought to criticise it in a more serious way, and with full regard to what has taken place, and with some practical and personal acquaintance with the work done by the Land Commission under these schemes. Before the Deputies took it on themselves to lecture the Land Commission about the failure of migration schemes they should have known the facts.

Deputy Norton asked why certain people were compelled to erect their own houses with the help of grants and advances, while other people had houses built for them by the Land Commission. The guiding principle is that whatever housing is found necessary it is to be provided at the least possible expense to the State. Houses built by the Land Commission are generally for migrants or landless men for whom accommodation has to be provided. As much as possible of the money is covered by way of advance. Uneconomic holders who get additions to their lands are required to build their own houses with the assistance of grants and advances.

Deputy Davin asked whether registered unemployed have been refused work while men with other means have been engaged. I have had an examination made into this question, and I think the facts as presented by Deputy Davin must be entirely wrong. No complaint of any discontent was made to the local inspector. We have no knowledge that the method by which the workmen were taken on was not a proper one. They were taken on in the usual way through the Employment Exchange. For example, the names of five registered unemployed were submitted at the Employment Exchange for work at Ralish, on the 19th of February, but only three presented themselves for the work in addition to three allottees, and five sons of allottees.

Subsequently another registered unemployed man was sent forward by the exchange. When the work started the names of nine registered unemployed men were forwarded by the exchange. Seven of these presented themselves for work and were engaged on another scheme. When the work at Ralish was finished, three men were transferred to another job. In addition, four sons of allottees and four unregistered labourers were required to complete the gang. The rest were made up as far as possible by men sent forward by the employment exchange. There is one man who was employed as a ploughman by a local farmer, and for special work on this scheme it was considered necessary to employ that man. His place as a ploughman was immediately taken by another. These are the circumstances, and if they are not in accordance with the facts, then I will look into the matter further. We have to bear in mind, of course, in connection with all these complaints about employment, that the inspectors have to get the work done satisfactorily, and they have to try to secure within the rules the proper type of workmen who will enable them to do that.

Colonel Ryan

Can we take it, then, that if the labour exchange does not supply the men necessary for the job, the inspector or the ganger can take on anybody in the area who is looking for work on the job?

Mr. Derrig

Yes; he has to get the work done.

Colonel Ryan

I am glad to hear that.

Mr. Derrig

Deputy Davin also referred to delays in the provision of houses. I have the particulars here, but I need scarcely delay the House in referring to them. Undoubtedly there have been delays and trouble with contractors in some areas. I think all the blame cannot be attributed to the Land Commission. In a great many cases it is also due to trouble with local allottees who are looking for financial assistance to which they are not entitled under the rules, disagreeing with the inspector as to the site on which the house should be built, or possibly disagreeing with the contractor. In any event, the fact that cases like that have continued for a considerable period should warn Deputies that there must be some reason. It may undoubtedly be due to a certain slowness in the administration, but when a certain situation exists over a period of years, Deputies should not be satisfied merely to write in and inquire why something is not being done or to raise the matter in the Dáil. I suggest that they should get in touch with the local headquarters of the Land Commission and see what is the reason. If they have personal knowledge of the facts, the inspector also has, and all the circumstances cannot be brought out adequately in official communications.

Deputy Davin also raised the question of wages. Like all other labourers in Government employment, the labourers employed by the Land Commission are conditioned to a 48-hour week, and have other small privileges in regard to holidays and leave which are not common to every class of worker in the rural areas. In the matter of wages their case does not stand alone. It has to be considered and decided by the Government in relation to the requirements of the farming industry, which is a very serious consideration at the present time. I do not think we should enter into unfair competition with farmers who are complaining in many areas of shortage of labour and difficulty in dealing with the work. In addition to that consideration, we have to examine the position of particular classes of Government employees in regard to Government employees as a whole. In dealing with the question of Land Commission labourers, we have to bear in mind the position of labourers working under other Government departments.

Mr. D. Morrissey

Does the Minister say that it would be unfair competition against the farmers to pay men employed by the Land Commission the minimum wage which has to be paid by the farmers themselves?

Mr. Derrig

Some farmers, I am sure, would contend that it would be unfair.

Mr. Morrissey

Is the Minister suggesting that the reason why the Government refuse to pay the men employed on Land Commission work at least the minimum wage which farmers are compelled to pay is because farmers object?

Mr. Derrig

No, I am not suggesting that. I have mentioned some of the considerations that the Government have to keep in mind in dealing with the matter. Complaint was made of delays in dealing with correspondence. The Land Commission receives nearly 400,000 letters per year, apart from communications relating to the payment of annuities or the lodgment and issue of documents of a legal or a semilegal character. It is estimated that if all the communications received were totalled up they would come to about 1,000,000. We receive about 6,000 letters from Deputies, some of them sending 100, some of them 200, and some of them more per year. About 70 per cent. of the letters are recommendations in favour of persons seeking employment, allotments of land, housing assistance, extensions of time for payment, acquisition of certain lands, and other matters for which the administrative arrangements are not only watertight, but very strictly supervised in accordance with the provisions of the statutes and the rules and regulations governing the administration of the Land Commission. Sometimes written complaints of irregularities, and avoidable delay are found to be completely unfounded. Nevertheless, inquiry has to be made into them, and the very valuable time of highly-paid officials, which would be more usefully employed in carrying out the normal work assigned to them, is taken up.

Mr. McMenamin

Would it not be better if, in the acknowledgment which is sent, the part which says that the matter is having attention was cut out? The general complaint is that an acknowledgment is sent which indicates to the person receiving it that the matter is receiving attention, whereas in fact it may be a matter to which the Land Commission could not give any attention.

Mr. Derrig

Deputies know whether the matter is serious or not. Another difficulty is that correspondence sent in by Deputies, and by the public more frequently, deals with matters of a difficult and confused nature, such as the division of land, complaints about the condition of land, inquiries about the ownership of land, applications for improvements, building, drainage, representations about rights of way, and so on. A big percentage of this correspondence dealing with difficult matters can only be attended to by instructions to the inspectors and by a report on the spot by representatives from my Department.

Mr. McMenamin

The Minister has given a typical list there of matters which have to be referred to a local inspector. If in reference to that category of things it was stated that they had been referred to the inspector it would give more satisfaction. In the form in which it is sent out it gives no satisfaction.

Mr. Derrig

The letter of inquiry, as I say, may not even describe the lands properly, may not give the Receivable Order number, or may not be dratted in such a way as to permit the Land Commission to identify the case. Even when it is identified, the particulars given may not be correct, or may not enable the Land Commission to put the case in motion. I am simply explaining the difficulties, the loss of time of the indoor staff, and, what is more serious, the loss of time of the outdoor staff if inspectors have to be sent to investigate complaints which, on examination, are found to be unfounded. For example, an alleged evicted tenant in Donegal wrote in complaining that nothing had been done for him in connection with some local allotment of land. The inspector who went there carried out genealogical researches going back to 1800 or beyond that to ascertain whether he was an evicted tenant or not, and it turned out that he had been recompensed in another way about 25 years ago but had forgotten to mention the fact.

I asked what amount of public money was expended on these useless and unnecessary trips of the inspector and I was told it would probably cost about £30.

Mr. D. Morrissey

He must have been a very influential man when he was able to get the Land Commission to do that.

Mr. Derrig

Probably. Deputy Linehan wants me to confirm a doubt about the capital liability of the farmers being halved by the 1933 Land Act, and to give some statutory reference in support of that view. I am not in a position to give a decision on the matter. I cannot give a legal decision on a disputed point. There is a very well-known remedy which will immediately suggest itself to the Deputy.

Mr. Linehan

So it is a disputed point.

Mr. McMenamin

Surely there is no dispute about it?

Mr. Derrig

There is no dispute about it, but I am not here to give a legal decision on these matters. If the Deputy thinks any illegality has been committed, he can get a decision.

Mr. McMenamin

Deputy Linehan put a simple question to the Minister, and it is only fair that there should be a specific answer, that the halving of the land annuities discharged the original liability for purchase money. The Minister should answer so that there should be no misunderstanding about it.

Mr. D. Morrissey

The Minister was not asked to give a legal decision. He was asked if he would refer to a particular section which gives statutory effect to the present position. It would be unfair to expect the Minister to lay down the law. He would be foolish if he attempted to do that, but it is permissible to ask the Minister to refer the House to a particular section which gives statutory effect to Government decision in the matter.

Mr. Derrig

I cannot answer that question at the moment, but I want to point out that if the Deputy has any doubt about the legality of the proceedings of the Land Commission in regard to the sheriff's affairs or about the capital liability under the 1933 Act, he has his remedy.

Mr. D. Morrissey

It is not provided in the Act.

Mr. Linehan

I have no remedy, even as a tenant purchaser, because until the period expires for which I am to pay halved annuities I would not find out whether the Government are really genuine in their attitude or whether there is any statutory authority for saying so, or if it is merely bluff.

Donnchadh O Briain

The Deputy knows very well that there is statutory authority.

An Ceann Comhairle

I understand that Deputy Linehan is trying to ask a question. He should be allowed to do so.

Mr. Linehan

I am not pressing for an answer now, but can the Minister point to any statutory authority which shows that the Land Act of 1933, or any subsequent amending Act, has discharged half of the farmers' capital liability? Would the Minister look into the matter?

Mr. Derrig

There have been many complaints about delays in taking over land and in doing other work. May I point out that the taking over of land for acquisition is a legal process, and takes a certain amount of time even under the most favourable circumstances, and there is no proof at the end that the land will be acquired? Not a great deal more than half of the land which the Land Commission sets out to acquire, following the legal procedure will fall into its hands. Deputies referred to the question of turbary. That is a matter we are looking into. The co-operation of the tenants would very often mean that the Land Commission could carry out the work more expeditiously and more economically. Sometimes schemes are held up because a single person holds out against them. I ask Deputies, not only in connection with correspondence, but inquiries, to reduce as far as possible the pressure on the Land Commission and to confine themselves to what they consider to be really urgent and important matters, and to use their good offices with their constituents where the Land Commission is carrying out turbary or re-arrangement schemes or land division schemes to fall in with the inspector's ideas, if it appears to them that the inspector is playing the part of the fair broker as between the contending interests. In connection with satisfying applicants for land, if that was tried it would be found to be impossible, and the work would never be done. A great many re-arrangement schemes are held up through the failure of tenants to come together and to work out schemes with the inspectors.

Deputy Nally referred to a number of cases. I have not had an opportunity to look into them, but I wish to call his attention to the fact that it is possible that his constituents may be under a mis-apprehension if they consider that the Land Commission is to blame in all the cases for the delays which he mentioned. He asked some time ago about the migration of tenants from the Ardilaun estate. I am informed that rundale conditions on this estate are bad, and as far back as 1918 the Congested Districts Board succeeded in migrating tenants as a preliminary to re-arrangement, but the area secured was insufficient for the purpose of the tenants, and they subsequently refused to agree to any re-arrangement scheme, and none could be induced to migrate. That was the position when the inspector met the tenants. The Deputy also complained of some kind of political prejudice as a reason why lands were not being divided. The position is that the Commissioners have approved of the resumption of five holdings in the district. The holdings in the first and second cases were published, and objections to resumption were lodged in each case. Fresh proceedings will now have to be taken.

The publication of the other three cases had not been made pending the passing of the Land Act, 1939. Deputy Beegan seems to have complained that nothing was being done by the Land Commission since 1935, if I heard him correctly. I am surprised that a Deputy representing a county which has obviously received a great deal of attention from the Land Commission all through, in which a very substantial acreage has always been in hands, and where very large sums have been devoted to improvement expenditure, should allege that work is not being carried out as it should be. The position is that, in the year ending 31st March, 1938, 4,721 acres were divided in County Galway amongst 341 allottees. In the following year, 3,874 acres were divided amongst 396 allottees, and the provisional figures for last year show that 3,330 acres were divided amongst 348 allottees.

Deputy Kissane and Deputy Flynn referred to the provision of turbary. Deputy Flynn must be aware that the turbary scheme on the Kenmare estate is going ahead. It was a very large scheme, and had to be taken in sections. The work is proceeding, and so far as the Land Commission is concerned, they are only too anxious to put the scheme into operation at the earliest possible moment, having regard to the very large number of tenants concerned.

Question put and agreed to.