Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 5 May 1942

Vol. 86 No. 11

Committee on Finance. - Vote 52—Lands.

Aire Tailte (Tomás O Deirg)

Tairigim:—

Go ndeontar suim ná raghaidh thar £764,639 chun slánuithe na suime is gá chun íoctha an Mhuirir a thiocfaidh Chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh lá de Mhárta, 1943, chun Tuarastail agus Costaisí Oifig an Aire Tailte agus Oifig Choimisiún Talmhan na hEireann (44 agus 45 Vict., c. 49, a. 46, agus c. 71, a. 4; 48 agus 49 Vict., c. 73, a. 17, 18 agus 20; 54 agus 55 Vict., c. 48; 3 Edw. 7, c. 37; 7 Edw. 7, c. 38 agus c. 56; 9 Edw. 7, c. 42; Uimh. 27 agus Uimh. 42 de 1923; Uimh. 25 de 1925; Uimh. 11 de 1926; Uimh. 19 de 1927; Uimh. 31 de 1929; Uimh. 11 de 1931; Uimh. 33 agus Uimh. 38 de 1933; Uimh. 11 de 1934; Uimh. 41 de 1936; agus Uimh. 26 de 1939).

That a sum not exceeding £764,639 be granted to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1943, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Offices of the Minister for Lands and of the Irish Land Commission (44 and 45 Vict., c. 49, sec. 46, and c. 71, sec. 4; 48 and 49 Vict., c. 73, secs. 17, 18 and 20; 54 and 55 Vict., c. 48; 3 Edw. 7, c. 37; 7 Edw. 7, c. 38, and c. 56; 9 Edw. 7, c. 42; Nos. 27 and 42 of 1923; No. 25 of 1925; No. 11 of 1926; No. 19 of 1927; No. 31 of 1929; No. 11 of 1931; Nos. 33 and 38 of 1933; No. 11 of 1934; No. 41 of 1936; and No. 26 of 1939).

Atá £130,014 de laghadú ar shuim an Mheastacháin le haghaidh Tailte. I mbliana arís, do féachadh ar bh'fhéidir a thuilleadh sábhála do dhéanamh, ach do bhí cuid de na fó-mhírchinn laghduighthe go dtí an fíor-mhinimum cheana. An aon mhór-shábháil atá ar chumas na Roinne, baineann sí le fómhíreheann I—an fó-mhírcheann a bhfuil furmhór an laghduighthe dhá dhéanamh faoi.

Ní gan doilgheas do cinneadh ar shuim cho mór le £128,600 do ghearradh d'fhó-mhírcheann fheabhsuighthe na nEastát. An caithteachas bhaineas le seo agus le déantóireacht foirgneamh, is gnáthach cuid mhaith oibre do bheith dhá fagháil ag oibridhthe na tuaithe dá bhárr. Ach atá cúiseanna eile sa seéal seo, taobh amuigh den riachtanas atá le sábháil i gcoitchinne do dhéanamh fá láthair. Ganntanas damhna, deacrachta iomchair, agus laghadú foireann tré iasacht oifigeach eolgach do Ranna eile—is éigean go ndéanfaidh na nithe sin ciorrbhadh trom ar oibreacha Choimisiúin na Talmhan. Tá dlúthbhaint, dar ndóigh, idir caithteachas feabhsuighthe agus roinnt na n-eastát, obair eile ar bh'éigean a gearradh anuas go mór. Faoi fhó-mhírcheann I, an bhliain seo chuaidh thart, do theastuigh tuairim is £355,000 le haghaidh scéimeanna feabhsuighthe, agus ba lugha sin ná an méid do bhótáileadh. San am atá i láthair, ba dheacair a réimh-innsint cad é beidhthear i ndon a dhéanamh sa mbliain atá romhainn, nó cad é an méid airgid a bheas ag teastáil le haghaidh feabhsuighthe, ach tar éis cruinn-mhachtnamh do dhéanamh ar an scéal, táthar ag iarraidh £329,350 faoi fhó-mhírcheann I.

Níl ach mion-athruighthe dá ndéanamh ar na fó-mhírchinn eile, agus ní riachtanach trácht ar mhórán aca.

Foireann-fhollamhantais áirithe (63) do bheith dhá bhfágáil gan líonadh fá láthair, is eadh is cúis leis an £2,033 de laghadú le haghaidh Tuarastal, Páigheann agus Allúntas faoi fho-mhírcheann A. Ina thaobh sin, ní misde a innsint go bhfuil 300 duine de fhoirinn na Roinne seo tugtha ar iasacht do Ranna eile, ach gur as an Bhóta le haghaidh Tailte atáthar ag baint a dtuarastal sin i rith an ama. Fá thuairim £90,000 suim an airgid sin.

An £6,000 de laghadú ar chostais bhóthar, faoi fhó-mhírcheann B, do thárla sin ann tré fhollamhantais atáthar d'fhágáil gan líonadh agus tré iasacht cigire do Ranna eile.

Athrú slighte oibre faoi'n Acht Talmhan, 1939, is eadh is adhbhar don laghadú de £2,000 faoi fhó-mhírcheann M. Is é rud a ghníos an fó-mhírcheann seo soláthar d'fhuascailt Bannaí Talmhan do bheith tugtha amach mar gheall ar ghabháltais a gcuirfí a gceannacht ar gcúl, nó a ndéanfaí a mbliain-chíosa d'athrú—nithe d'fhágfadh ceartú ag teastáil ó na híocaidheachta do thionóntaí nó do thighearnaí na ngabháltas. Sul do ritheadh Act a 1939, do b'éigean Bannaí Breise d'fhuascailt i gcás eastát a ndearnadh na cistí do leithriú, agus ba riachtanach, dá bhárr sin, airgead na fuascailte do chur ar fagháil, agus ús oireamhnach ina theannta sin. Faoi Roinn 10 (2) de Acht Talmhan a 1939, tá sé de chumhacht ag Coimisiúin na Talmhan tarraingt amach as na Taisc-Bhannaí Urraidheachta cho fada agus théigheas ainm-luach na breise agus is féidir an fhuascailt do sheachaint sa gcaoi sin.

Chífear gur leigeadh ar lár £4,800 do bhí faoi fhó-mhírcheann K i meastachán na bliana seo caithte. Is é rud do bhí annsin soláthar i n-aghaidh easbaidhe d'fhéadfadh bheith in Ioncum Chunntas Themporáltachta na hEaglaise Éireannaighe mar gheall ar chistiú agus athruighthe eile faoi Alt 18 (9) de Acht Talmhan a 1933. Do caithfí easbaidh ar bith mar sin do choimhlíonadh i gcomhair na n-éileamh reachtamhail atá ar an gCiste. An tsuim úd de £41,250 per annum do híoctaí go reachtamhail le Bord na gCeanntar Cumhang i bhfuirm úis ó bhreis-deontas na hEaglaise Éireannaighe, do fágadh a Iocaidheacht i gcúram Choimisiúin na Talmhan mar chomharbaí don Bhord; ach, do réir Ailt 50 de Acht Airgeadais a 1941, is féidir a laghadú do réir mar chinnfeas an tAire Airgeadais. Mar sin de, ní gá úsáid do dhéanamh de airgead Bhóta na dTailte do choimhlíonadh easbaidhe ar bith eile in ioncum Themporáltachta na hEaglaise Éireannaighe. Nuair a bhíos a leithéid de chomhthromú riachtanach, anois, is é rud a laghduightear an íocaidheacht reachtamhail a dlightear do Choimisiún na Talmhan.

Do laghduigheadh, freisin, Itim (2) de fhó-mhírcheann na leithreas-i-gCabhair. £41,250 do hiarradh anuraidh, agus £30,000 atáthar d'iarraidh i mbliana. Sa gcuid eile den fhó-mhírcheann seo, is beag nach cothrom na méaduighthe agus na laghduighthe; ach do cuireadh isteach ann Itim nua (Uimhir 9) do thaisbeáint £3,411 de aisíoc as Bhóta 73, i dTuarastail oifigeach do haistrigheadh go hOifig na Scéim Speisialta Fostuidhthe.

Maidir le hobair Choimisiúin na Talmhan i gcoitchinne, do b'éigean í do mhoilliú cuid mhaith mar gheall ar an éigeandáil. Ní fios go fóill cad is suim iomlán do na figiúracha bhaineas le róinnt eastát, ach meastar gur roinneadh tuairim is 22,000 acra ar 2,000 gabháltasaidhe anuraidh.

Ins an mbliain seo chuaidh thart, do tugadh seilbh ar thalamh i lár na tíre do dhá fhichid teaghlach ó na Ceanntair Chumhanga. Atáthar ag brath leanamhaint don obair thairbheach seo, cho maith agus is féidir i rith na bliana atá romhainn.

Ó d'éirigh géar-riachtanas leis an móin, do tugadh aire speisialta do oibriú na bportach atá ar Eastáit Choimisiúin na Talmhan. Do cheaduigh an Coimisiún tuairim is 145,000 do chaitheamh le n-a aghaidh sin anuraidh, agus, sa séasúr seo chuaidh thart, do baineadh breis agus 155,000 tonna mónadh de phortaigh do fuarthas ar cíos ón gCoimisiún.

De bhárr Ordú Práinneach darab data an 10adh de Mheadhon Foghmhair, 1941, do scuireadh, go deireadh na héigeandála, de oibreacha áirithe bhaineas le ceannacht talmhan; ach atá an-chuid leitreach dhá bhfagháil ag an gCoimisiún go fóill faoi na gnótha sin. Is deacair a chur i dtuigsint don phobal nach féidir don Choimisiún leanamhaint fá láthair don obair mar ba ghnáth. Mar gheall ar na foirne cléireachais do bheith laghduighthe go mór, agus mar gheall ar neithe eile nach bhfuil neart ag an Roinn ortha, is éigean an obair do leigint chun moille.

Iarsmaí an Ghalair Crúb is Béil, do chuir siad cúl ar bhailiú na mBliana-Chíosa; ach, mar sin féin, tá an scéal réasúnta sásamhail fá láthair. An 31adh den Mhárta, 1942, do bhí tuairim is £857,000 de riaráiste iomlán ins na gálaí go léir do bhí iníoctha roimh Mí na Nodlag, 1941—suim do bhí tuairim is £40,000 ní ba lugha ná an riaráiste do bhí ann an 31adh den Mhárta, 1941. Bailiú an ghála dheireannaigh (Samhain agus Nodlag, 1941). do chruthuigh sé go réasúnta maith. Do fuarthas, cheana féin, níos mó ná trí cheathramhadh den tsuim do bhí ionbhailighthe.

General MacEoin

It is to be regretted that the activities of the Land Commission have been reduced so much. In the past, even at the hottest of times here, I think the Minister will agree that, amongst others, I have paid tribute to the very great work being done by the Land Commission for the relief of congestion and the improvement of estates and farms. At a time when the land is required to produce more food and more of the necessaries of life than it ever produced before, it is a mistaken policy on the part of the Government to reduce its activities. The story that the Minister has told us of the reduction of the improvement grant by £128,000 and the practical cessation of acquisition of any further lands, under any circumstances, is an indication of a very grave mistake.

In various parts of the country, there are farms of land becoming available, for many reasons, that in the ordinary circumstances would not be on the market at all. There are many large holdings where, owing to compulsory tillage and for other reasons, the owners have thrown up their hands in despair and are prepared to hand them over. The only action that can be taken now is that the Minister for Agriculture could step in and set the lands, and the owner could be left high and dry. It is a well-known fact that, if the Land Commission were still functioning, and these particular farms became available and were distributed to the small holders in the district, or alternatively, if the holdings were available for young unmarried men and others of a suitable type, the rush from the land would be eased. There is no alternative now, or apparently for the duration of the emergency. When boys come to 24 or 25 years of age on the farm, there is nothing for them to do, and if one of them gets married the others must clear out.

For the last 15 or 20 years, under the activities of the Land Commission, when a holding was taken over, a certain proportion of it was given to landless men, and this worked out well generally. I think it is a mistake that, when these holdings are available now, the Land Commission should not be allowed to go back to their original plan. The interest of the country would best be served by a return to their normal activities. Where they are satisfied that the case is made and the land is available now for distribution and they can get it, notwithstanding any difficulties which may be in front of them, they should be allowed to take it over and divide it in the best interests of the people, as they know how to do it.

I freely admit that the Land Commission has been, like Caesar's wife, above reproach in all activities like land division, land improvements, and so on, and it is too bad that that particular type of work should be stopped. At least the nucleus of it should be maintained. There are some outstanding cases in which judicial decisions were given and the vesting orders have not been completed yet, although this has been going on for seven or eight years. I do not wish to go into the details, but I think this should be speeded up. Then there is the question of people who are entitled to receive moneys from the Land Commission for land taken over already. It was slow enough before but now, apparently, it is slower. A man whose estate was taken over five, ten or 15 years ago can get neither principal nor interest, because of some particular difficulty. That is not as it should be. If a man were in physical possession and not able to prove absolute ownership, though enjoying the land at the time it was taken over, and if there was nobody to question the title, he should at least get the interest, pending establishment by him of his title to the principal. I think that particular aspect of the Department's work should be speeded up.

On the question of migration from congested areas, I consider that the Minister has not been fair to the House, and that he should tell a little more about that scheme. It commenced some years ago, and he should be able to make some survey of it by indicating whether the money expended on such activity has been well spent. He might give a word-picture as to how these people are now living, if their condition has improved generally, or how they have reacted to the generosity of the Government that initiated the plan for their improvement. As we hear all sorts of rumours I should like to hear a positive statement of the facts from the Minister. I do not think he has done himself justice or been fair to the House by explaining whether the scheme has been a success. If it has been a failure, or only a partial success let him say so and explain what are the causes that led to that result. Of course if it has been a success he has nothing further to say about it.

There are many difficulties confronted by those who are concerned about land annuities. A substantial number of farmers have never really recovered from the economic war. I am sure we would all like to forget about that, and also the Government, but the fact is that these farmers have been unable to meet their obligations for the past five or six years. I agree that the Land Commission have been willing and anxious to help them if the people could help themselves, but when there was no stock on their holdings, or when everything had been removed, they were in such a position that they could not recover. Then there are other farmers with small holdings whose instalments are in arrear. This year is better than last year, but they had to buy seeds and, in some cases, horses with which to carry out tillage operations. As a result they are not even able to meet the current annuity instalments. Some method might be devised by which the banks would accept, say, £1 or 10/- a month towards paying off whatever sum a county registrar considered it possible for a tenant to pay, instead of having the account placed in the hands of whatever official is responsible for the collection. If a man could go into a post office with instalments of 5/- this week and £1 perhaps next week towards payment of the debt, it might be helpful. At present if the receivable order is not brought in within the time specified the bank cannot take the money. The tenant must then wait until he receives a six days' notice, and if the amount is not paid within that time, the bank cannot take it and the matter goes to the county registrar. The result is that these unfortunate people have to go to somebody they know to write a letter to the Land Commission and to send on a postal order. They do not like telling their circumstances or that they cannot pay their rent. It would be an advantage if there was some method, when a county registrar makes a return saying that he is satisfied that a John Brown could pay 5/- a month, whereby the tenant could go to the nearest post office and have payment accepted and entered on a card. It may be argued that that would multiply the difficulties of accountancy, but it would make things easy for people in arrears and enable them to get out of their difficulties. It would be a good day's work if such persons could be restored to a feeling of responsibility as owners of their farms, and owing the Land Commission nothing. I admit that the Land Commission are anxious and willing to give all the time that can reasonably be given for payment, but it is too great a strain on Deputies to have to write letters and, if they have cheque books, to send on the amounts owing, even though these people pay for the cheques. It means that the Deputies have difficulty in keeping their accounts. There should be some simplified method of having payments made at the post offices or banks.

I regret that the Government, for reasons that I do not know, have stopped the acquisition and division of land. Where representations are made to them in exceptional cases I suggest that they might reconsider the matter, particularly where the representations come from members of the different Parties. A special effort should be made to meet such cases because those who make the representations have responsibilities and would not intervene except in well-founded cases.

Captain Giles

One good thing the emergency did was to bring land division to a complete stop. Deputy MacEoin said that he would rather see it speeded up——

General MacEoin

Not speeded up.

Captain Giles

——I think that the reverse should be the case. My county has experienced more land division during the past 25 years than any other county. As one who is living in the midst of a large number of new homes, I say that land division, as carried out, is nothing more than a waste of public money. Anybody would think that, after such a long time, the Land Commission would realise that tearing up the rich lands of the midlands and dividing them in scraggy patches amongst people, who, in most cases, have not a shilling in their pockets, is unfair to the country and to those who helped to make the country free. In my county, there is really more destitution in the newly-divided farms than there was in the west of Ireland, whence they brought the people. The Land Commission requires a re-shuffle. There must be some old cronies there who are anxious to see land division a complete failure. I know that there are some splendid men there who would like to see things going well, but I fear that some people there are urging the Minister to keep on dividing land into scraggy patches, so that it will be proven that the British ranch system of 50 years ago was the right system and that there is nothing to be done but go back to that system. The Land Commission will have either to stop land division or undo the work they are at present doing.

It is sometimes asked: "Why cannot a family live on 20 or 25 acres in Meath when you have families living on four or five acres in Clare and Kerry?" They are not living on the land in these counties. They are living on money from emigrants in Britain and America, on fisheries and on poteen. We, in Meath, have to live solely by the land. Five acres in Kerry might be worth 70 acres in Meath. It is unjust to compare farms in Clare and Kerry in size with farms in Meath. Let the Minister go down and ask the majority of the people who have been settled in Meath if they are satisfied or if they are living by the land. Most of the people I know who got land were ordinary workers, living by their day's labour with the farmers. In many cases, the land they got has been set back to some farmer and they are working either on the roads or bogs or with farmers. They are not living by their land. If the Minister says that that is successful land division, I say it is not. When land is divided, it should be in such a way that a man, his wife and family will be able to live on it in comfort and will not have to be cringing to his neighbour for a day's wages. Not one of the farms divided by this Government would carry two horses. They have to rely on an old pony and they can never have their crop in in time because they have to wait on their neighbour to get his crops in. You find them ploughing lea land when they are late and, as a result, they get very poor crops. We should not let it be thrown back in our faces by people who were ejected from the country 25 or 30 years ago that their ranch system was a success and that our small farms are a failure. The small farms which are being divided now are bound to be a failure and, unless that system is ended, the ranch system will be proved to have been a comparative success. No farmer, no matter how good he is and no matter how hard he works, can live on a farm of less than 30 Irish acres. On anything smaller than that, he is only a labourer. That should be dinned into the mind of the Minister. The Land Commission must be dunderheads if they do not realise that. If they come from farming stock, I wonder what kind of farm they were reared on. It was not a 20-acre farm. It was probably a 40-acre or 50-acre farm. It is all nonsense talking about land division by the present system.

I want to show the Minister the way the ordinary midland men are being treated as compared with the men brought into the county. When the Land Commission divided a farm in Meath, most of it went to migrants. They sometimes left three or four farms for uneconomic holders in the vicinity and for the herd. I am aware of estates round about me on which land was divided about four or five years ago. The migrants got everything. Everything the Land Commission could shower upon them was given them and they were placed there in their houses. On these estates, houses were marked out for local men but the foundation has not been laid yet. The new men from the west and south have been living in their holdings for three or four years while the Meath men, born and reared there, who are entitled to a preference, have to live in neighbours' sheds and in condemned houses while waiting for the Land Commission to come and build houses for them. It is a disgrace and a shame to make such a difference between people. If you build a house for a man from the West of Ireland, why not build it for a man on the lands of Meath? I ask the Minister to say that there will be no more of this unfair treatment but that there will be fair play and justice for all.

We have no grievance against these unfortunate men who came from the West of Ireland. They have a difficult task in front of them. The Minister said a few years ago that they were quite happy, were doing well and that their farms were quite economic. He said that the new farms extended from 22 acres up. That is altogether wrong. Farms of 19¼ acres of bad land have been given to men who are expected to rear eight or ten children on these scraggy patches. It is nonsense to tell the people that these men are living in comfortable and happy surroundings. The Minister may have seen in the papers reports of these men marching through the streets, stopping at the General Post Office and demanding economic farms. Are these the people the Minister told us are living comfortably and happily? They are certainly not making a "bob" on the farms and they are not living by the farms. Nearly every family has two or three members in England and others have members working on the roads and bogs. They are not getting their living by the farms. If ordinary times were to return, the migrants who have come to Meath would flee like locusts.

Within ten years there will not be a quarter of the migrants there that there are to-day. They are only waiting for the chance to get back to their old surroundings or to go to America. They are completely "fed up" with their present situation. Although they got horses and sows and cows, oatmeal and wheatmeal and everything the Minister could think of, they are dissatisfied and are depending on their neighbours or on Britain, or on the bogs or roads for a living. They cannot live on their uneconomic holdings and they were quite right to march through the streets and demand their due. I would support these people in looking for their rights. When you brought these people to places like Meath, I was against it. I found that many were as decent as I am myself and that is fairly decent. They are honourable people, but they were completely fooled. The people I am talking about are 100 per cent. Fianna Fáil. There is not one here or there who might be thinking my way. They are 100 per cent. Fianna Fáil and they are completely dissatisfied, and the scheme is going to be an absolute failure.

I would ask the Minister to stop this nonsense of saying that he is dividing the land. He is destroying the lands of Meath. I want to know why it is that the Land Commission will not divide estates that were taken over five years ago. Year after year they are set to the big rancher, and he has his bullocks on it. In many cases the ditches are left without being repaired. The Land Commission have set this land for the last three years in tillage. I know one man, a herd on an estate, who got what he is told is an economic farm. He got 25 acres of stubble that was in its third year, which contained nothing but thistles. Of course, he was a Meath man. He has to develop that 25 acres into arable land, and there is not a perch of that land suitable for a cow. Then he is told he should be content and happy because he got land for nothing. No such thing. Most of the divided land is at altogether too high a rent. In fact, the rent is abnormal that has to be paid for the lands of Meath.

I would ask the Minister why it is that the Fowler Estate in Rathmolyon that was taken over five years ago, which we were told was to be divided immediately, has not been divided. It was to be divided three months ago, but the inspectors changed their minds and it was put up for public auction and let to a man in the locality at a fair price. The people of Rathmolyon could always get grass for ten to 25 cows on that estate. Every man who wanted grass for a cow could get it. When the Land Commission took over they gave the tenants half a day to get their cows out. They are still waiting for land on which to put their cows and they cannot get it. The Land Commission will not facilitate them, but they facilitate the bigger people by setting the land to them. There is not a pound of butter or a cup of milk in Rathmolyon because of the blundering of the Land Commission. They took the land from the gentleman who had looked after the rights of the people living in that little town and they forget about their rights. The result is that people are starving in Rathmolyon to-day. A herd who worked and lived on that estate for the best part of 20 to 30 years now sees the land that he may get, and perhaps may not get, on the third year of stubble. It has not been properly manured, but has been ploughed up all the time. That is the treatment the people of Meath are getting. I would prefer that the Minister would speak in a language that we understand, not in the Irish tongue. He is using that language for the purpose of covering up a lot of things. He slipped it across us this evening. I would like to know Irish.

Mr. Derrig

I gave a translation of my speech to the Front Bench of the Deputy's Party.

Captain Giles

Translation or no translation, I want to say that the Minister did not give us sufficient particulars. He did not tell us how many migrants there are, how they are circumstanced to-day, whether they are going to succeed or not, how much land he has in hands that is not divided which should be divided. He has told us everything he should not have told us. I hope that next year we will have a general review of the whole thing. If this Minister does not want to give us satisfaction, let us hope some other Minister will be put in his place and that the Land Commission will wake up. The people of Meath will see that they wake up. They are getting rent and taxes as fast as we can pay them, but we are getting no satisfaction.

The Land Commission inspectors come 30 times to an estate. They were able to get enough petrol to run an army. They come several times to map land that could be mapped in five minutes. I think it is making a good job for themselves they are. Two or three inspectors would do, instead of five or six. Let them do decent work, not mapping land, leaving it for three years and coming and mapping the very same land over again. They listen to the story of every Tom, Dick and Harry, but they will not go near the parish priest in the area because he will tell them the truth. The political hacks must be satisfied. I may be told that that is untrue, but I say it is not untrue. In my part of the country there were men for whom I was getting home help for the last three years. I blessed myself when I saw them signing for land. They thought they were made up when they got land. They forgot that when they got land they would lose home help and would lose the services of doctors, nurses and dentists. They have their land now, but the nation is the poorer and they are also the poorer. They are nothing more than labourers. They are told they are buckshee farmers. They are not farmers. They cannot live on the land. They have not a penny for themselves or for the people who should be getting employment on the land. Then we are told the scheme is a success. I saw a huge heading in the Irish Press four years ago.

Donnchadh O Briain

Do you read it?

Captain Giles

I do. I read all papers, because I want to get both sides of the picture. The heading was to the effect that the O'Sullivan Beare from Cork comes back to his native soil in the rich lands of Meath under the hills where the kings of Tara walked long ago. There was a great preamble, a fanfare of trumpets and torchlight procession. The O'Sullivan Beare did come from Bantry, County Cork, and found himself on a farm in the Gibbstown Estate, County Meath, but the O'Sullivan Beare was not left very long on that estate and he did not get the chance of going back to his native Cork. Where is he to-day? The O'Sullivan Beare and his six children, his wife, and his old mother, 82 years of age, are to-day the guests of the county poorhouse in Trim. They are there for the last ten months, at the expense of the ratepayers in County Meath. I brought his case before the Minister on a few occasions and he gave me a fairly long, considered reply, but I say that no man who has met this gentleman is satisfied that he got justice.

In our opinion the Land Commission are a bigoted set of cranks and when they make a mistake they cover it up at somebody else's expense. It was a whole series of blunders on the part of the Land Commission that brought that man into the poorhouse. He is there at the expense of the ratepayers. The board of health can do nothing. The man himself can do nothing. The home he left in Bantry will not be given back to him. I would ask the Secretary of the Land Commission, who is now in this House, to make full investigation of his case.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Secretary of the Land Commission is not in the House, not being a member.

Captain Giles

I beg your pardon. I would ask the Minister to give this man a hearing. I asked him to give him a hearing by an independent court and the Minister would not hear of it. The Minister is taking the story from the inspectors. The blunder was not made by the O'Sullivan Beare; it was made by the Land Commission and he is a victim. He was mulcted in costs in the courts. It would be only right that he should get a fair chance. Every Deputy listening to me, including Deputy O'Reilly, and Deputy Kelly, knows that this man received unfair treatment. It has destroyed the whole idea of bringing migrants to County Meath or the Midlands. What can people say when they see a most respectable and decent man thrown on the side of the road, his mother thrown out of a sick bed, living as a pauper?

Five years ago the Irish Press had the heading: “The O'Sullivan Beare comes back to his native soil.” God save him from the treatment he is getting on his native soil now. This is his case and I want to see it fully investigated. I am not going to say whether O'Sullivan or the Minister is right. Let him state his own case, and these are the facts as I got them. He came up from a village near Bantry in the year 1937. His father died in 1936 and his mother signed the place over to the son, Michael O'Sullivan Beare after the father died. When the Land Commission were looking for migrants, this man applied and out of 70 applicants from County Cork and that vicinity, there were two picked. O'Sullivan was the first man picked because he seemed to be the most suitable for the purpose. He was brought up and handed over the key in 1937. A short time afterwards an inspector called on him and said: “You were not the rightful owner of your place.”

I want to say that O'Sullivan had documents showing that the place had been assigned to him a year before. He was in this holding in Meath when the Land Commission alleged that he was not the rightful owner of his father's place. They went in on his holding in Meath, upset his way of living and brought him to the poorhouse. If there had been a mistake in accepting him as tenant for this place in Meath, they should have stood over their mistake instead of evicting him. I am informed that his mother had no right or title to the holding. I am not, however, his legal adviser, and I cannot decide this matter. The mother is an old illiterate woman over 80 years of age who could not even sign her name, but he states that the place was assigned to him by his mother after the death of his father.

He was brought to court by the Land Commission and the judge said that as there appeared to be a misunderstanding between the Minister's Department and O'Sullivan, they ought to come together and settle it. The Land Commission piled up the expenses until they reached £25 or £30, and said to O'Sullivan: "Before we fix you up, you will pay that." Like the man he was, he would not pay that amount and the Land Commission would not settle with him. A decree was then got against him for something like £200 or £300. Of course he could not pay it, as he had not the means to do so, and they evicted him and never gave him back even the key of his own holding. The buildings on his old holding in Cork are now in such a condition that all the windows and doors are gone, but he was told to go back there even though the Land Commission had the key. That is the treatment the migrants get when they do not stoop to the Land Commission.

The Land Commission then auctioned all the farm implements. They told him he did not own the horse, the plough or anything, but when it came to the auction, they put them down in Michael O'Sullivan's name as if they were his property; yet he did not get the money for them. Neither was he let get any of the mangels, turnips or oats he had sown, and there was no value placed on them. These crops were allowed to go unsaved because there was no one to save them. The Land Commission lost hundreds of pounds in that way. They would not give anybody a chance of making money on them; they would not give O'Sullivan a chance of even clearing off the crops. They were like bloodhounds watching to see that he would not get anything out of the place. They put them up for the highest offer. No one would offer anything for them, as nobody was going to be a scab in County Meath. The day of the scab is gone there. O'Sullivan offered £80 which was three times as much as anybody else would offer, but the Land Commission refused it, and said: "You must get out." The Land Commission could not get anyone in the vicinity to undertake the saving of the hay or the oats and they had to go to my end of the county, which is 30 miles away, to get a horse to cut the hay and to harvest the oats.

The Minister has not told us the amount of money expended in dealing with cases like this. The expenses must run into hundreds of pounds and I say it is a waste of public money. It was only the other day that Michael O'Sullivan, now an inmate of the poorhouse, got a demand for rent for the land from which he was evicted years ago. Where does that unfortunate man stand at all? He either owns the land or he does not own it. If he has been put out of it, why is rent demanded from him? Probably the worst thing that could happen to him is that I have brought up his case in this House as that very fact may mean that he will not have any chance of getting fair treatment now, but I say that if the Minister is a good Irishman, as he undoubtedly is, he should see that this man is given fair play. I ask him to meet O'Sullivan face to face and discuss the case with him. There is no use in acting the aristocrat by leaving him to officials who have at their disposal legal advisers and others who can put the case from their side perfectly to the Minister and say: "It is clear as A, B, C." Poor O'Sullivan merely wants to knock at the door, to beg admission for a few minutes to enable him to put his case to the Minister but he will not be allowed by the Land Commission into these great buildings—buildings of iniquity I call them, because I think more impudence comes from the Land Commission offices than from any other building.

It is terribly unfair that the Irish peasantry are looked upon as nothing but serfs in that Department and that they have to bow and scrape to officials before they can get anything. I am not saying that that is true of every official, but I say that the Land Commission needs a cleaning up for the sake of Ireland and the tenants of Ireland. In putting things strongly in this manner, I may be doing myself a lot of injury, but I do not care a hair. I say there is too much of the old British garrison still there. I want to see young Irishmen who were bred and born on the soil of Ireland, who were reared by struggling parents in bad times, planted there. Let some of these people be put in charge of the Land Commission and we shall have some hope for the future. As things stand at the moment there is not the slightest chance of making land division a success as 80 per cent. of the people given land are nothing more than State paupers. I know that in many cases the land is given to political hacks. Whenever land was to be divided in my constituency, I could almost tell beforehand who would get land and who would not and I was nearly always right. I think it is time to realise that the people of my county and of the midlands in general want to see farmers' sons, who can put up £100 or £200 of their own, placed on the land. Men of that type will be able to make some good use of the land and will be able to give employment in the busy times of the year. Instead of that, you have land given to men who, instead of working it, will set it to neighbouring farmers and will go out working on other farms.

The Land Commission will not even erect proper fences, with the result that these men do not know their bearings, and there is endless trouble between them. As things stand at present in many cases their lands are merely a common age. Another grievance is that a large number of these men were promised that pumps would be erected for them when they took over the land, but they are waiting for the pumps still. Not one pump has been erected for them. These people have to go four or five miles to draw water for their cattle; the land is worth nothing to them, because you cannot keep young cattle on a farm in summer without water, and I think the way the people are being treated is very unfair. In the case of the migrants, however, a new house is erected for them before they come in at all; new pumps, new piers, new gates, yards, haggards, and all the rest of it, are provided—everything is done for them, and at endless expense, but the unfortunate farmer's son has nothing at all done for him. He is told, in effect: "There is your scraggy bit of land; you can do what you like with it, but, you had better make sure to pay your rent when it is due." I say that that is unfair, and it is time that somebody should voice the opinion of the people, because the people are in an uproar about it. These people are good farmers and they would rather that an acre of land was never divided than see it destroyed.

Now, I cannot understand why it is that when a contract has been given out for the building of a house, over four years ago, it is not built yet. If it is not built, why are not the inspectors of the Land Commission getting after the contractors concerned and either taking the contracts away from them or else seeing that the houses are built? There are cases in my locality where they have been waiting for the last four or five years for houses to be built. In the case of some houses and sheds the timber is put on and the slates are left off both winter and summer, and that timber, in the winter, is swelled by the rain while, in the summer, it is parching and drying. Yet, some of these contractors are working 50, 60 and 80 miles away building houses in other counties; they will not answer the letters from people begging them to build the houses. The Land Commission do nothing about it. The unfortunate people write to them asking them to do something for God's sake, but all they may get in reply are a few words in Irish that they have to get the school teacher to translate for them. The whole thing, in my opinion, is a waste of money and an insult to the people, who are living, as I have already said, in shacks and sheds and condemned houses, while rearing five or six children and doing their best to carry on. They are living in these shacks and condemned houses four or five miles away from the farms they are supposed to work. I say that land division, as it stands at present, is a farce.

Mr. Victory

We have listened to two speeches: one from the Front Bench, by Deputy MacEoin, congratulating the Minister on the acquisition and division of land, and another from the Back Bench, by Deputy Giles, saying that the division of land under both Governments has been a failure. One thing that we heard from Deputy Giles I never heard before, and that was, in effect, that five acres in Kerry were worth about 30 acres in Meath, and he supplemented that by telling us that in places in Meath there is neither butter nor milk and that farmers are in the county home. If that be the case in Meath to-day, I wonder is it not time for the country to waken up, particularly when we have been talking for years about self-sufficiency and the necessity for using the lands of Meath for supporting the country in its present emergency? According to Deputy Giles, neither the last Government nor this Government should interfere with Meath: we should leave everything to the farmer. I wonder if Deputy Giles has really considered the position of the country as a whole or if he realises that it is quite possible that within the next few months we shall be in a state of siege in this country? Does he realise what the effect will be if there is neither milk, butter, eggs nor bacon —because the one follows from the other—while these people go off to their dog racing and their horse racing and leave the land to go wild? The Deputy talks about not being able to get a strand of wire, but where is it to come from nowadays? Fences can be made by other means than by wire, and there are Government grants for the reclamation of land and for increasing its fertility, but we are told here by Deputy Giles: "Hands off Meath; our farmers are all right, and leave them so." If the picture of the situation drawn by Deputy Giles is correct, I suggest that the Minister should take serious notice of it.

I agree with Deputy MacEoin about the slowness of the Land Commission in the division of lands. I know that there are difficulties, but there are some things that should not be allowed to drag on too long, particularly when it comes to the case of an estate where names were taken and inquiries made, and all the rest of it, five years ago, and still the lands have not been divided. In the case of an estate at Ballymahon, in Westmeath, it is more than five years ago since division was decided upon by the Land Commission, but nothing has been done. It was to have been done two years ago, it was to have been done 12 months ago, but the land is still undivided.

I think that in view of the present circumstances of the country there can be no excuse for delay in a case like that. I think there is no Deputy here to-day but realises how serious the situation is, if he really wants to think of the country now and in the near future. The war is all around us and, whether we are in Opposition or not, we are driven now to talk about self-sufficiency. We are driven now to make the best use we can of the land. I do not agree with people who talk about the farmer being beggared nowadays. Any farmer, if he is industrious to-day, can make good.

I do not wish to say much more on this, except that I would like to see the industrious, hard-working farmers, who have been referred to by Deputy MacEoin, put in charge of the land, because they have the training and the experience, and the time has come when this House should consider whether they should give any farms to people who are not using them in the national interest. We have the Department of Agriculture and the Land Commission taking over occupation of certain farms at present, and I think that it is only right that such action should be taken because it is necessary to save the nation.

Mr. Curran

There are one or two questions I want to raise on this Vote. One is the question of the flooding of the lands on the banks of the River Suir. I begged, implored and beseeched the Minister and the Land Commission officials to let us know what is going to be done in connection with this matter. We hear, up and down the country, about the tilling of land, the use that should be made of it, the scarcity of food, and all that sort of thing. Now, there are 1,000 acres of land going to waste on the banks of the River Suir, particularly in two places. One is the old hardy annual, Tybroghney, and the other is Portlaw. I think that the condition in which these lands are at the present time is a disgrace. They are good for nothing; the River Suir is running in on them, and at the present time the bank at Tybroghney is merely slob-land and mud, for around about 400 acres. Quite recently, during the past winter, a breach has occurred on the opposite bank of the river, on the County Waterford side. Neither of these is in my constituency, but I had to turn back on the road recently because of the flooding that occurred there. I know that the Land Commission view is that, under some Land Act or another, the farmers took responsibility for the upkeep of these banks.

I believe that is disputed in the case of the banks on the County Waterford side. The position at any rate is that something should be done about it immediately. There is no use in thinking that the farmers at this time are going to remedy the position on their own initiative and at their own expense. All I know is that it is a disgrace to see it. We hear of the bad times in the days of the landlords. These lands were reclaimed in those days and were kept up by the landlords. But now, when we have a home Government, nothing is being done. It is terrible to think that we have there 1,000 acres of good land which is being flooded. I saw tillage on it myself. To-day all that land is fit for nothing.

I had hoped that the Drainage Commission which sat a few years ago would have recommended a solution of this problem. I want to know definitely from the Minister what are the possibilities of doing something in connection with these particular banks. There is no use in telling me that it is the owners' responsibility to maintain them. That would be too big of an undertaking for the owners. As far as they are concerned, we have been told that all the land belongs to the State, and would be directly used in the interests of the State. But whoever is responsible, something ought to be done. Even if a new code of laws be required to meet the position in regard to these embankments, it ought to be brought forward. I ask the Minister to take this matter up himself. He knows as much about it as I do. Some of this land is in his own constituency, and more of it is not far away from it. It is up to him to put pressure on the Land Commission or the Board of Works to have something done, and see who will bear responsibility afterwards in connection with it.

The other matter that I want to deal with is the question of land division to which reference has been made by some previous speakers. I want publicly to protest against the division of land that is being carried out in my constituency in Emly. I am informed that, although there were plenty of local applicants, only two from the locality got allotments on the worst part of this estate, and that outsiders were brought in and given the remainder. The result is that this 400-acre farm has not been divided. So far as I know, the land is there derelict. I know that certain things have happened there—that fences have been thrown down. I do not agree with that.

Everybody knows that when people in a locality resort to such steps there must be something wrong, and that a great injustice has been perpetrated on the people. The Land Commission are not able to get anybody to do anything on this land. I read recently in the newspapers an admission by the State Solicitor that they could only get a caretaker there. They will not get men to work on the land. It is no wonder from what I have heard, although I have not been to Emly. I know that members of every Party in this House have been there and have condemned in the strongest possible manner the action of the Land Commission in connection with the division of that estate.

I suppose it is unique in the history of this country to have a local agitation, backed up by the priests, being carried on there at the present time. I would advise the Minister, even at this late hour, to have a redivision of this particular holding. It is said that some of the local people were not worthy applicants: that they were probably from the towns, and so on. I fail to believe that. I know that is not true. I do not think that the priests of a parish would associate themselves with anything which was not fair or reasonable where the interests of the people were at stake. That is the situation there at the present time. The priests of the parish have been backing up the local people for the redivision of this land and trying to right the wrongs that have been perpetrated in its division. I would advise the Minister in the future, whatever he or the Land Commission may do about other counties, that when they are seeking to divide land in Tipperary they will have a better regard for the interests of the people in the locality before setting out to bring in outsiders. That is what I am told has happened. If the Minister reads some of the speeches made by members of his own Party he will find that they were as strong in condemnation of the policy of the Government and of the Land Commission as were the speeches made by members of other Parties.

It is not my fault that I have not been to Emly. If I had been there, I would have associated myself with the people's protest. I would advise the Land Commission to reconsider this whole matter and not to treat the local people as they have treated them. Out of this 400-acre holding the local people got only 33 acres of bog in the corner of it. The Tipperary people will not have that, no matter what the Minister or the Government may try to put across them. From what I have read in the local papers, I suggest to the Minister that it would be better in the interests of the Land Commission, of the people of the locality and of Tipperary as a whole that this matter should be settled amicably, because there is no one, no matter what Party he belongs to, who stands for or sympathises with what the Government have done in this case. I am not standing up here to talk on this as a member of the Opposition. There are Fianna Fáil T.D.s who stood up in Emly and condemned it just as I am condemning it here. Members of the Labour Party have done the same. When you have that state of affairs existing, backed up as it is by the priests of the parish, one can say that the Land Commission are up against it and are not going to get away with it. I hope that the Minister, in his wisdom, will impress on the Land Commission that they should have a redivision of this particular holding.

Mr. Kennedy

If it was considered good national policy by the last Government to have migration, and if it is considered the same by this Government, I want to know from Deputy Curran if he holds that it is right to have migration to the County Meath and County Westmeath——

Mr. Curran

I never said that it was.

Mr. Kennedy

——but that when it comes to Tipperary or Limerick his attitude is: "You cannot cross the border."

Mr. Curran

We will not have it there, anyway.

Mr. Kennedy

I agree that migration is necessary. In examining the land problem in this country, no matter how many Fianna Fáil T.D.s were at the meeting in Emly and no matter how many parish priests were there, if they were there, to protest at a local agitation, that does not make the policy of migration wrong. If it has been right in the last 20 years to migrate people to Leix, Offaly, Meath, Westmeath and Dublin, then it is right to-day, and migration is just as applicable to the County Tipperary as it is to the County Meath.

I find myself in agreement with Deputy Giles when he says, in effect, that the Land Commission cannot make a ditch. They never could, and they have never learned anything about making a ditch. It seems a small thing to them, but it is an essential boundary between one man's holding and another man's. Deputy Victory spoke of the sod fences. They take off a quantity of sods and heap them on top of one another and put a strand of wire on top of that. Two or three cattle come along and shove against that and knock it down. The ordinary farmer who is given the job of making a ditch makes a ditch which will remain for generations. But the Land Commission geniuses know more than anyone else. I have been protesting in this House for the last 15 years about the kind of ditches they have been making, but it is all in vain; they will go on taking the sods. These alleged ditches are monuments to their inefficiency all over the midlands as well as the rest of the country. However, we must make our protest against the kind of ditches they are making.

I also agree with the Deputy about the way the houses are built by the Land Commission. I think they should remember the motto, that the dear thing is the cheap thing in the end, and that they should give the contracts for the building of houses and out-offices to contractors of repute and not to the cheap contractor, the new man who starts out by employing unskilled labour and in the end does not complete the houses. You have that occurring in Meath and Westmeath. I wore my boots out going to the Land Commission protesting against the contractor employed on the Sheridan estate at Griffinstown near Kinnegad. The contractor there employed a lot of youngsters at scab wages whom he housed in a hut and provided with food. Then when he had put up a number of houses he cleared out. No one listened to me when I made representations in that matter. There were contractors of repute all over the midlands who would have done the job efficiently and well if the Land Commission had paid any attention to the representations made to them. That is only one example.

On account of the number of officials transferred from the Land Commission to the Department of Supplies and other Departments the work of the Land Commission is slowed up. In the meantime the sale of land is going on all over the country. Recently a company has been registered for the purchase of farms all over the midlands. I know of one farm of 450 acres which they acquired recently and I believe they have acquired a number of other farms. I know that a north of Ireland crowd are purchasing farms in every second parish in Meath and Westmeath. During the last war a number of these hard-headed northerners came from County Down and bought up farms in the midlands. At the end of the war they put up these farms for auction and doubled their money on them. The people who bought these farms have never got out of the clutches of the banks since.

When we were in opposition I remember asserting to the then Parliamentary Secretary in charge of the Land Commission, Mr. Roddy, that under him the Land Commission were paying too much for land and making the annuity of the incoming occupants too high. Mr. Roddy produced a set of figures to prove that for a period of years they paid fairly level prices for land and were not influenced by the outside market prices; that they were influenced by the quality of the land and what the annuitants had to pay. As I say, farms are now being bought up by this company and other people. I know of one farm four or five miles from Mullingar which, in the month of January, was sold for £5,000 to a man in Kilcock. Two months afterwards he put it up for auction and got £7,000 for it. This speculation in the sale of land is going on, and I should like an assurance from the Minister that when the work of the Land Commission is resumed it will not be influenced in the purchase of land by the inflated prices which now obtain and will obtain when the war is over; that the level of prices will correspond to the level that obtained before the war and, consequently, that the annuity on the incoming tenant will be about the same as it is for annuitants at present. That is an important matter for the Minister and the Land Commission to look into.

Deputy Giles referred to the treatment accorded to the migrants in contrast with a man in County Meath who gets a farm. He stated that the migrant has a house and out-offices built for him, a yard laid out for him, his tillage done free for him for a year, and that in addition he got a weekly sum for a certain period, and certain stock. I am not against that. That is the right and proper way to settle people on the land. But the County Meath man should get the same treatment. If a man is moved from Bohermeen down to Oldcastle and given a farm there, he should get the same treatment as a migrant from another county. A number of the migrants have not a word of Irish and yet they have all this done for them. The Meath man, who is also an Irishman, should get the same treatment as the migrant from any other part of Ireland. Therefore I join in the plea made for him by Deputy Giles.

When I spoke about the company which has been registered for the purchase of farms in the midlands I had in mind a farm for which they are negotiating at present. That reminds me that there are a number of farms up and down the country belonging to people who were not really depending on farming. They had incomes from England, Burma, and other places abroad and because the sources of their income have gone west they are now compelled to sell their farms. In many cases, as the result of local agitation, the Land Commission at one time had these farms inspected, and when they saw the amount of labour given and the work done on these farms decided that it was not in the national interest to acquire and divide them. Now new circumstances have arisen and these people are putting the farms on the market. Where that happens, the Land Commission, if there is any staff available, should step in and acquire these farms and divide them. In the case I have in mind the result of the sale will be that 25 workmen will be knocked out of employment. These men have the grass of a cow and a calf, meadowland and turbary, and all that will go by the board and 25 heads of families will be put out of work. The incoming firm which gets this farm employs nobody but a herd, and it is a case—I am sure there are several similar cases—where the Land Commission should intervene. They should concentrate whatever staff they have on those cases where big farms are on the market.

Mr. Cogan

In the debate on the Estimate for the Department of Justice I had occasion to refer to the question of land annuities in County Wicklow. The Minister made the point that the amount of arrears outstanding in that county was much greater than in other counties. I should like to hear from the Minister for Lands when he is replying what is the percentage of collectable rents outstanding in County Wicklow, and how that percentage compares with other counties. From the information I have, I do not think that the amount outstanding in County Wicklow is substantially higher than in other counties. We have to take into account the fact that Wicklow is for the most part a county of mountains. It is a county which, by reason of the mountainous nature of the land, was exceptionally hard hit by the economic war. The people are engaged for the most part in the rearing of store cattle and sheep, and those two industries were very adversely affected. In 1933 there was another calamity. A large amount of the herds and the sheep in the county were wiped out in the snow-storm of that year.

Taking all those circumstances into account I think the Minister would not be justified in taking any more drastic action in dealing with County Wicklow than with any other county. I have had brought to my notice cases which were sent to the sheriff by the Land Commission, where the amounts of £6 or £7 involved were not six months overdue. In cases like that it cannot be contended that there was any very serious default or any attempt to evade payment, particularly when we have regard to the fact that last year the sales of cattle were held up because of the foot-and-mouth epidemic. I think the Minister should look into those cases and see if I am correct in stating that there are no excessive amounts of arrears, generally speaking, in County Wicklow as compared with any other county.

I think it is to be deplored that the division of land has been suspended during this period of emergency. Whatever circumstances may have moved the Minister to suspend the division of land, I think he should reconsider that decision, taking into account the number of people who are unemployed, the amount of unrest which prevails generally, not only in this country but outside it, and the need for settling a larger, and still larger, number of our population on the land. When we consider the situation which may develop after the war, when numbers of people may be forced to return to this country from Great Britain; when numbers of young men may be disbanded from the National Army, and when there will be numbers of people unemployed in industry, surely we must realise that it would be prudent for us now to inaugurate an intensive policy of land division. I would ask the Minister, now that there is a full in the division of land, to investigate all the circumstances in regard to land division over the last 20 years, and to find out to what extent the policy of land division may not have been well-advised. Having thoroughly investigated the whole matter, and having consulted with independent advisers representative of every Party and of every viewpoint, he should immediately inaugurate a widespread and far-reaching measure of land division.

This question of the most suitable and most economic size of land holdings is one which has come up for discussion almost every year on this Estimate. I do not know exactly what principle guides the Department of Lands in deciding upon the size of holdings. I presume their idea is to allot a sufficient amount of land to provide for the maintenance of one family. I do not think that should be the main consideration. I think the aim of the Department of Lands should be to establish the most economic holdings that can be provided. The question of what is the most economic holding requires a good deal of consideration, and I think that any practical farmer will advise the Minister that an economic holding is not merely one which will provide for the maintenance of one family. An economic holding is one which will enable the farmer to keep the minimum amount of stock and implements necessary to enable him to work that holding to the best advantage. You cannot plough without a pair of horses, and you cannot keep a pair of horses on the type of holding that is parcelled out by the Land Commission. I think the fundamental object of the Land Commission should be to establish holdings which will enable the farmer to keep a pair of horses and all the equipment and implements necessary for the efficient working of that holding. Such a holding would, I believe, not only provide maintenance for one family but for two, or at any rate, it would provide employment for an agricultural labourer in addition to the owner of the holding. That would be a much better type of holding for the country in general, and for every section of the community. I should like to hear what the Minister has to say on that matter. Such a holding, as some Deputies have suggested, should consist, I think, of about 30 Irish acres of fair land. At the present time, this question is receiving a good deal of attention. We have the armchair agriculturists and economists telling us that we ought to merge all our farms into big collective farms, and that those would be more economically worked with tractors or other mechanical power. I do not agree with that view. I think that the type of farm that would give the best results to the farmer, the worker and the nation is the type of farm I have indicated—a farm which will provide maintenance and employment for the farmer and his family, and, in addition, constant employment for an agricultural labourer. That type of farm would be better for the nation and would ensure a more equitable distribution of the land than would the collective or communistic farms which are being advocated by our economists.

Professor O'Sullivan

There is one thing on which I agree with Deputy Cogan. I think it would be wise if, in the light of experience, and possibly also, so far as that is feasible, in the light of the problems that we will have to face, there was a thorough investigation into the question of land division. But, unlike Deputy Cogan, I have not the answer ready to hand before the investigation has started, because I gathered that, having invited the Land Commission to make a thorough investigation as to whether the practice was a good practice, he immediately proceeded to announce that there should be a more thorough system of land division. I got the impression on a previous occasion, in discussing some aspects of this Vote, that apparently the Land Commission went on the line that its business was to acquire and divide farms—it was a definite Department of Government, and that was one of the jobs imposed upon it by the Legislature, and it was doing that job. As to what effect that would have on the agricultural position of the country as a whole, that was not the job of the Land Commission and, therefore, they were not bound to take that consideration into account, and they did not.

I cannot take the quite optimistic outlook that Deputy Cogan takes that the small farm of 30 acres will be economic in the future, and furthermore, that some kind of closer co-operation between neighbouring farms of 30 acres may not be forced upon them, whether they like it or not, by the very conditions that may prevail after the war. I think there is a case to be made, now that there is, so to speak, a pause in this particular work, for the investigation of this problem, not from the point of view of any individual or set of individuals, but of the country and the agricultural prosperity of the country. It is, I think, rather doubtful policy, when you consider, not the interests of a few individuals who might benefit or not, as the case may be, according to their capacity, but of the general agricultural outlook. For a number of years past I did get the impression that two Departments of Government—which is not rare amongst Departments of Government—were more or less holding each other at arm's length and that the Land Commission went on without any general consideration of the effect on agricultural development of the policy it was pursuing.

I think there is no good in our burking the fact that, whatever be the result of the present war—nobody would be rash enough to foretell that —there will be a big change. It will affect every walk in life. There are men who describe themselves as being traditionally out and out capitalists in matters which, up to the present, they would have regarded as matters strictly for purely new enterprise; yet I see men like that, in a neighbouring country, realising that that system in all its completeness would have to go. They do not want Communism, or anything like it: in fact, they want to avoid that, but the only way it seems that they can avoid it is by meeting the situation that arises. Whether we like it or not, we must face that. As I am speaking on this question of land division and Deputy Cogan's remarks —which I confess I find it difficult to weld into anything like a consistent whole; it was his remarks that brought me on to this question at all—I would like to know whether there is really a pause as a matter of policy or whether it is all due to the explanations the Minister set out in his opening statement—lack of building materials and lack of officials—or whether the Government wishes to slow down the pace while they are thinking over the matter.

There are other matters to which I should like to call the attention of the House. There are some Votes of which I cannot help thinking as anything but token Votes. There is a Vote of £500 for the maintenance of embankments. There is a rather mock Vote for £100 for carrying out the provisions of Section 37 of the Act of 1933, that is, where there is to be an abatement of the land annuity if there is permanent flooding. The very fact that one sees very much the same kind of figure year after year raises the suspicion that not much work is going to be done in either of those directions. We have Ministers quite properly going through the country impressing on the people the necessity for more production. I presume they mean production from the land. If you approach any of the Government Departments whose business it is to deal with the question of putting certain land in a cultivable state, you are told that is not their business, that it is the business of another Department. You go to the Land Commission and they tell you calmly that the question of arterial drainage is a matter for the Board of Works, and that they have no responsibility. You go to the Board of Works and they admit they have not been able to do anything in the matter, last year or the year before that, or the year before that, or next year or the year after, or the year after that.

One Government Department sends you to the other Government Department, but the result is that, as every Deputy knows, nothing is done. There is no money in the Land Commission to do it, and the Board of Works cannot do anything because they have not the necessary legislation to allow them to carry it out. Instead of being reclaimed, the land gets worse, with more and more flooding year after year. If you approach the Land Commission, you are liable to be told even that the breaking down of the banks of the rivers really means that much less land is being flooded. Being people of a simple form of mind, we receive that statement with surprise, but we must not think of questioning it. At a time when Ministers are impressing on everybody the necessity for more production, the two Departments concerned are able to do very little. I do not know what use is made of Section 37. Apparently a certain number of cases have been dealt with, but considering the few cases that were dealt with and considering the Vote of £100 which is down for that purpose this year, I would say that they are not taking the section seriously. It was a good thing to have it in the Bill when the Bill was going through. It shows a good intention on the part of the Government, but I would much prefer to see it carried out extensively.

Reference has been made by the Minister to the way in which the Department has been depleted. That is another reason why work which I hold as urgent work cannot be done by the Land Commission. I gathered from his statement that, in the emergency, members of the Land Commission have been taken from the work of the Land Commission and loaned to other Departments, as if the protection of land, the inspection of bridges and the inspection of flooding—and therefore the operation of Section 37—were not at all a portion of their work. They could not do it, and who could blame them? Every Department has come in and stolen, so to speak, the Minister's helpers. There is reference to that in his statement. For that reason, he says that the work of the Land Commission cannot be done as it would be done normally. Most of us have to complain that it is over-normal, that it is outdoing itself in many respects, as a result of the depletion of its staff. It was never so normal as it is now.

These are the principal matters I wanted to raise. The Board of Works and the Government as a whole are to blame because they do not give serious attention to the constant deterioration of the land, as a result of bridges and banks of arterial schemes being broken, and its being nobody's business to repair them. Nothing can be done; the Land Commission cannot do it: it was not their responsibility; the Board of Works cannot do it, because they are thinking of a much bigger plan. Meanwhile, between the two Departments the banks get worse and the cost of the repair work mounts year after year, notwithstanding pious statements that we hear from Government Departments that, after all, there is less flooding now as a result, apparently, of the breaking down of the banks and of the greater damage done. The Land Commission do nothing. In other countries in Europe, they are not hesitating to undertake the reclamation of land, and they think it is a good proposition; yet here is a country which, more than any other in Europe, is predominantly agricultural, determined not to do anything in that way.

As I said at the beginning, when dealing with Deputy Cogan's speech, we must undoubtedly face very new problems after the war, and we are deliberately allowing our principal machinery—the land—to fall into disrepair. It is, so to speak, our principal factory, and what improvement has been made? The emergency which should urge us on to more determined efforts to deal with that situation is used as the excuse for doing nothing. I think that is regrettable, and that it shows a lack of proper responsibility on the part of those concerned. With work of that kind to be done, the Minister should have put it before the Government as work that, in the national interest, could not be neglected, and if inspection was necessary it should be done and men should not be taken from the Land Commission—as the Minister implies they were—to be put on to other work. Remember, as I said, the farms are our factories. That is not a phrase of my own coining: it was used in other agricultural countries. We are allowing those factories, so far as the Government is concerned, to go to rack and ruin, and we are making no effort to prevent the damage being done year after year or to see that that damage is not progressively increased, which is really what is happening. The Minister can say that that is the business of the Board of Works, but that is small comfort to those who are looking to the future.

More than once I have made a suggestion that there should be better co-operation between the different Departments in Government. Sometimes there is pursued in one Department a policy that runs counter to the policy produced by another Department. I remember that, some years ago, we were discussing the question of turf; and at the time one Department was putting money into turf and starting an intense propaganda for its use, another Department was overseeing the building of cottages by local authorities; and whilst the turf Department said there was a range that could burn turf, the other allowed ranges to be put in which were quite incapable of doing that. That habit prevails in every Department. Each Department stands autonomous, though I admit there is a kind of loose connection between them. They are like a Confederation of States, and have to discuss, almost diplomatically, their relations with one another. Then, over and above all, there is the Department of Finance, and you can blame them for everything that is happening. I suggest it is time that the Department attended to these important matters.

Mr. Hickey

I would like to hear the Minister's reply regarding land division and the size of holdings. I have in mind three estates which were divided, where 17 or 18 men have got holdings of about 40 acres of very good land. The rents were very high, but they made a success of them. They maintained the farmer and his family in reasonable comfort. I have in mind other estates which were divided and where men were given as low as 25 and 30 acres, and I have seen these men making a wonderful effort to survive and work successfully on their holdings, but, because of the small size of the holdings, they were unable to make a success of them. Very often I have seen those holdings let in grazing to large farmers. I often felt sorry for those hard-working men who have taken over those small holdings and have been pressed down because of economic conditions and unable to survive the difficulties which confronted them, particularly the question of meeting the rent.

As Deputy Cogan said, we know that the men need horses to plough the farm, and other things as well, and the difficulty was their borrowing money and being unable to pay it back. I have seen those holdings carried on and worked mainly by the bigger farmers in the locality. In Wales the British Government has adopted settlements, and the Minister might tell us his view on the question of dividing estates of the kind Deputy Kennedy was referring to, where a number of men had the grazing of a cow and calf and were able to carry on. I have in mind one estate of 666 acres. Instead of giving these 20 people farms of 30 acres, the estate was divided between 15 persons, each of whom got about 40 acres. In my opinion, it is impossible for 20 or 25 people to rear families on holdings of 30 acres. What should be done is to put 15 or 20 houses on an estate and have some system of co-operative farming so that these families could maintain themselves. I have in mind such a place in Wales upon which the British Government experimented in that way some years ago. I do not agree with the idea of the communistic system. Each family on these Welsh estates was established on a holding and worked it in a co-operative way. A manager was employed and some 33 families had a recognised income, but a separate identity. How many persons who got holdings of 25 or 30 acres have been failures? I heard of people who should never have got land and who were not worthy to get it. I am inclined to agree that the holdings given were too small to enable the tenants to stand up to economic conditions. On the other hand, I know of men who got good land in County Cork and were successful. They survived because they got 40 acres. Men who were equally industrious but who only got 30 acres were not successful because the holdings were not economic. I should like to have from the Minister a survey of the results of the division of land. The rent fixed on many of these holdings was too high for industrious people to survive. I do not know if, when purchasing land, the Land Commission bears in mind that a family has to be reared out of the 35 acres, although the charges amount to 35/- or 40/- an acre. I think it is impossible to do that. I heard Deputy Kennedy stating that people were about to be dispossessed in his constituency and that land was about to be taken over by individuals who had no particular interest in the district.

Mr. Corry

I must agree with Deputy O'Sullivan that the Land Commission was the wrong place from which to take staffs for other Departments. I am opposed to having too many officials but, when men are taken out of a particular Department for a number of years, that does not improve the position. I know that the Land Commission did their job very well in my constituency last year. They tilled practically 75 per cent. of the land in their possession and took crops off it. The same land is being tilled this year and, probably, it will be the same next year, but they are taking crops off that land without putting any manure on it. I am wondering what kind of land that will be when the time comes to divide it.

Mr. Hickey

Do you mean the conacre system?

Mr. Corry

I mean land in the hands of the Land Commission that was taken over for division before the war began. They had not officials there with the necessary vision. I could understand crops being taken off the first year, but I certainly object to crops being taken off for three or four years and then having the land handed over to some person to make a living out of it. That could not be done. There is an old problem in my constituency—the scandal was perpetuated by the Land Commission last year—in reference to an estate that was up for division for almost 14 years. That was the Flower Estate, containing about 400 acres. Whatever kind of influence was put up, small farmers, living on the hillsides, whose predecessors had been evicted, received no notification that the land was to be dealt with and only 40 acres were divided amongst them. Nine days after that, an advertisement appeared in the Cork Examiner offering 380 acres for grazing on the 11 months system. I do not know what influence was used. I cannot believe all the yarns that I hear about the influence, and I cannot believe that the same influence that held sway still exists. I sent the cutting from the Cork Examiner to the Minister. It indicated that the 380 acres were to be let for grazing. That is not fair.

In 21 parishes in that area, there are about ten land-holders, all of whom, it may be said, were planted there. There are sums of £400, £500 and £600 due for rates to Cork County Council out of some of these estates. Still no steps are being taken by the Land Commission to acquire and divide them. Eventually, if the Land Commission takes them over, the county council will only get two years' arrears of rates. In the case of the Rostellan estate about £780 was due to the county council. That estate is now being worked on the same system of conacre year after year, everything being taken out of the land, and it will be useless. Nobody can tell me that, on a farm on which crops are raised year after year, wheat and oats will be of any use afterwards, seeing that no manure is put into it. I move to report progress.

Progress reported.

The Dáil adjourned at 9.30 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Wednesday, May 6.