The discussion on the Estimate for the Department of Lands has been rather disappointing. I was struck by the tendency that Deputies showed to deal with constituency matters. However much one might understand that tendency in normal times, there would scarcely seem to be any necessity for it now. One would imagine that Deputies understood the position generally regarding land purchase operations and the work of the Land Commission. So far back as November, 1939, I explained to the House, in reply to a question by Deputy Norton, that the Land Commission was confining itself to actual commitments, that it was not proposed to undertake new acquisition proceedings, that a very considerable amount of land was in process of acquisition or was about to be acquired, and that I felt that to deal with that would give the Land Commission ample work, possibly for a period of years, in any case for a substantial period. Deputies are aware of the fact that considerable numbers of officers have been taken away from the Department to deal with other work. I find that we are short of no less than 371 officers. There are some branches of the Department, like the collection branch, which must remain at their normal strength; otherwise it would be quite impossible to carry on essential work such as that branch performs in collecting portion of the national revenue.
The position now is worse, so far as staff is concerned, than it was when I advised the House early in the emergency that we should have considerably to restrict our operations because in addition to the large increase in the numbers we have lost, our outdoor staff, of course, has considerable difficulty in attending to its work owing to transport restrictions. As regards the actual work of land resettlement, it is very difficult to procure building materials with the result that we find it very difficult now to continue our migration schemes. I am hopeful it will be possible to continue them even on a very restricted scale, but the difficulties of the time make it very hard to carry out any form of housing scheme at present. Deputies know that. I need only say, therefore, that new commitments are out of the question. There is a Government decision that no new commitments can be entered into at the present time and we are confined, apart from the actual day to day work, to very urgent cases of turbary or afforestation work. We are trying to acquire land for afforestation purposes; the Land Commission plays an important part in that work. A considerable amount of the land acquired for that purpose comes through the channels of the Land Commission. Then as regards turbary and the development of our peat resources, the Land Commission is a very important agency also. As Deputies know, it spent hundreds of thousands of pounds in the exploitation of our bogs.
In spite of the difficulties of the times very important work has been done. Last year, as I pointed out, no less than 22,000 acres were divided and allotted. In addition to that, migration work has been carried on. Only intimate acquaintance with migration work can give Deputies a knowledge and understanding of the tremendous difficulties entailed in having tenants removed from one part of the country to another and carrying out all the small details connected with such schemes. Turbary has been attended to very well by the Land Commission. It has concentrated particularly on it since the war and the result is shown in the fact that last year the country generally benefited. Parish councils and private individuals were able to take advantage of the offer the Land Commission had made to lease bogs. We had a large number of lettings. That is quite apart from the actual work of making bog roads, etc., which has been going on for years and which still continues. I think, in the first place, it is not worthy of Deputies to suggest that the Land Commission is not doing some work which lies there to hand. The position has been explained over and over again, that operations are very restricted and that there are very good reasons for that, the chief one being shortage of staff. Secondly, no appreciation seems to be shown of the fact that the Land Commission is in the nature of a huge public office where, quite apart from the work of acquiring and allotting land, a tremendous amount of business is daily going on in which the public is greatly interested.
Deputies know that we have, I suppose, more than 500,000 receivable orders coming into the Land Commission. There are 400,000 vested and 70,000 unvested tenants. Even if only a small proportion of those write in about matters affecting them, Deputies will see the considerable amount of work that arises. As the matter has arisen, perhaps I should give the House, so that it may appear in the Official Debates, some account of the type of work that falls normally to the Land Commission, and which Deputies seem entirely to forget about.
The primary work of the Land Commission was the transfer of the land to Irish tenant purchasers. Later on under an Irish Government it undertook what a great many people considered to be the revolutionary policy of land division and resettlement. Quite apart from what the Land Commission has been asked to perform by successive Irish Governments, it is also carrying on other very important work. I think no Department of the State has such a wide range or such complex activities to account for. As will be seen from the list, they are of a technical nature. Take the Acquisition and Resales Division, where at present we have less than half the normal staff. A considerable portion of the work there deals with re-sale. It is assumed when land is taken over by the Land Commission that everything is completed. Actually about two-thirds of the work of the re-sale section is in respect of matters which only arise after schemes have been actually put into operation. Matters have to be dealt with arising out of correspondence or otherwise and, in many cases, if not dealt with would cause considerable loss to the State or to individual tenants. In many cases they may be regarded as matters of urgency. If the Land Commission did not take steps to deal with them legal proceedings might be instituted against it. These include failure to take up immediately parcels of land, which are to be surrendered on exchange, so that income from the surrendered land is provided by allotment or otherwise; failure to follow up warning notices to tenants who are not working holdings; failure to follow up collection of cash payments which may have to be paid in one sum or by instalments, non-payment of rates which may lead to seizure of stock belonging to allottees or persons to whom the Land Commission let land, the termination of employment and stoppage of wages, of herds, caretakers, etc.
There are claims constantly arising about flooding, trespass, and injury to animals, stated to be due to Land Commission neglect and likely to lead to legal proceedings. In the acquisition of rights of way compensation has often to be paid and certain legal steps taken. Claims for compensation for malicious injuries have to be made within a certain date. Claims may be made by owners of land for interest on purchase money, if possession is not taken on the date fixed. Any delay in the completion of exchanges may result in proceedings being taken against the Land Commission, as migrants may claim that they could not have any dealings in connection with the land until the new holdings were vested. Claims against purchase money by the Land Commission may not be entertained if not entered in good time. There are also applications by allottees to divide land and applications by boards of health for apportionment of annuities arising out of the acquisition of labourers' plots. In cases of dispute between tenants and the board, this may involve legal proceedings so that inquiries have to be made and instructions issued. Where rights of way or water rights are disputed, it may be essential to make orders. Poor rates and drainage maintenance rates have to be apportioned and the demands identified. There are also applications for building assistance, for information from the Agricultural Credit Corporation, and from old age pension and from unemployment assistance authorities. There are various other matters, including applications from inspectors for sanction in connection with new improvement works, or additional sanction in connection with works already undertaken. That is only portion of the work of the Land Commission.
In the Purchase branch, where revesting of land is carried on, we are at present down to almost one-third of our normal staff. It is a very important branch, and in normal times we would have more than enough work to do in carrying on the revesting of tenancies, which has been going on extremely slowly, even though the tenants are not at any financial loss. Nevertheless, every tenant would like to see vesting carried out, so that he became complete and full legal owner of his land. Until revesting is completed, tenants will not be in that position. Even in the state of affairs which existed before the outbreak of war, it was obvious that a great many years would elapse before that work would be completed. It has had to be laid aside owing to the shortage of staff, but that has not reduced the work of the Purchase branch to the extent that one would imagine, because the following matters have to be dealt with: flooding, erosion, turbary, embankment trust, drainage trust, resumption cases. We had complaints of resumption cases not being dealt with, but that is only one of the many duties of this branch, which is endeavouring to get these cases heard and a decision come to so that tenants will know where they are. It deals with purchase money of holdings, over £3,000 in value, sub-division and sub-letting, revesting, miscellaneous correspondence, housing assistance, sporting and fishing rights and re-arrangements.
Deputies have no doubt seen the map that I have had hung in the hall showing the rearrangement of the Palmer Estate. That was one of many hundreds of such cases. It was referred to in the House on many occasions and is only an example of the type of very intricate and technical work that the Land Commission has been doing. That particular case was going on for years, almost for generations, but has now been completed. Applications for admission of land to the purchase provisions of the Land Acts are not all completed. The purchase branch also deals with estates or, even with individual holdings in which numbers of people may be concerned, where sub-letting may be carried on to a great extent. Recently, owing to difficulties which had arisen about commonages held by numerous tenants, 30 to 40 in one case, it became necessary to call for a report covering 340 holdings in a single group. Any attempt to deal with them and to settle all the questions arising from the commonages takes up a considerable amount of time of the limited staff we have. In turbary schemes, regulations have to be made, and the allotments have to be made in the same legal manner and completed satisfactorily so that no question can arise subsequently, exactly as in the case of arable land which is being allotted.
In this particular case there are four sub-divisions, and other actions pending, and it has been found desirable, as I have said, to take up a report covering 340 holdings. In another case, on 19 of 34 holdings affected by a turbary scheme there are sub-tenancies which have to be dealt with. A further scheme involves 45 other holdings on one of the most difficult estates in the country. The surveyor concerned, in order to complete these turbary schemes, has made numerous amendments in boundaries, and so on, but the consents of the tenants have not been obtained. There are numerous sub-tenancies, co-tenancies, and claims to tenancies, and in fact there is a good-sized job of estate work of a most difficult nature to be done before the turbary end of the matter can be tackled. It may be mentioned in this connection that the solicitor insists on due authority being given by way of amending particulars or otherwise before proceeding with the work.
Those who have responsibility for the operations of the Land Commission have to see, not alone that the rights of the tenants are safeguarded, but that everything is proper from the legal point of view, so that costly litigation will not follow. There are hundreds of cases—perhaps thousands—of board of health plots throughout the country, in all of which the particular board of health is trying to get the plots vested so as to have the matter finally dealt with from the legal point of view. That, in itself, although only one of the many activities of this Purchase branch, takes up an enormous amount of time. I myself had an example of a case where a Deputy came to me about a holding in connection with which he said correspondence had been going on for years: there was a large number of people involved and they were suffering disabilities, legal and otherwise, through the fact that this matter was not being dealt with. When it was taken up in the Department it was found that there were actually 57 sub-tenancies on the one holding, so that to deal with even that single case will take a very considerable time. Another case that we have had in County Roscommon concerns an estate of 180 holdings, and the office has to settle questions of rights of way; no less than 19 rights of way, apparently, for the tenants with holdings on that estate, have to be dealt with. The whole tendency in debates on the Land Commission is to concentrate on the acquisition and re-sale of land, as if the entire work of the Land Commission was concerned with that, while no regard is had to the very valuable work that I have outlined, which is going on from day to day and in which thousands of tenants are involved—work that has to be carried out and which, if not carried out, may be the cause of grievous loss to all concerned.
Deputies, I suggest, should bear in mind that the Land Commission is carrying out, I venture to say, a larger amount of the everyday business of the community—certainly, of the rural community—than perhaps any other Department of State; that it is contributing to the essential national work of fuel supply, for example; and yet we hear very little about these activities. It is carrying out the administration of work on embankments, and dealing with questions arising from flooding, and, generally, as well as a tremendous amount of correspondence, it has, owing to its peculiar history, a huge number of obligations, running into hundreds of thousands of cases. It has this large number of legal obligations to perform, and when it appears that matters have to be attended to they very often call for a detailed inquiry by the inspector on the spot and, as I have said, for treatment by well-trained and long experienced officials in the office.
So, I think that the criticism we have heard is quite unjust, and simply arises from the fact, if Deputies are serious about it, which I doubt very much, that they just come in here, not knowing exactly what they are going to say but feeling that, perhaps, this is an appropriate debate in which they may say something of possible interest to their constituents. Whether what they say is correct or not, or whether it is based on actual knowledge of the conditions under which the Department is working at present, does not seem to bother them. I was glad, however, to hear from Deputies like Deputy Brennan that there is at any rate a body of opinion in the House which fully realises the important work that the officers of the Land Commission have been doing, not only now, but for many years past. As I said, nearly the entire land of this country has been transferred to the tenant purchasers of Ireland through the work of that Department. Under Irish Governments, that Department has divided over 1,000,000 acres of land, and planted people on that land; far more than was done, of course, in the long history of the Department under the British Government.
One would imagine, at any rate, that there should be recognition of that work. It is heroic work, extending over generations, beyond the time of most Deputies in this House, and certainly beyond their public lives. But instead of acquainting the people of the country and their constituents with what has been done even in recent years, there is a most regrettable tendency, which I should like to condemn as strongly as I can, to blame the Land Commission for not doing things which Deputies know are quite impossible. If Deputies think that they could have been done, then I suggest to them that they lack honesty in the matter. We are a democratic Government and a democratic Legislature, and one would imagine that an important Department of this kind should get credit for the work it is doing. One would imagine, in fact, that in the times that exist in the world at present, Deputies would go out of their way to maintain the prestige and credit of State institutions like the Land Commission, which is carrying out a national policy, and the officers of which have no interest whatever except to carry out that policy in accordance with the instructions given them by the responsible Government. Should there be another Government in office next year or the year after, the Land Commission officials will carry out the duties allotted to them by that Government with the same fidelity as they have done under this Government and its predecessors, and I think it is a scandalous state of affairs that at this time in our history we should have Deputies, not alone getting up here in this House, but actually going out in public and identifying themselves with agitations in which it is sought to be argued that some "sinister" influence, antagonistic to the real interests of the Irish people, exists in the Land Commission.
There is no foundation whatever for that accusation, and it is surprising that people can be got even to whisper it, but we know that people whisper very strange things indeed. I want to state here, with all the authority that I can, that the Irish Land Commission, like every other Government Department, is run by Irishmen, officers of an Irish Government, and that they have no interest whatever in political or other questions except to carry out the duties that are allotted to them, to carry out the policy of the Government. It is regrettable that we should have these charges made when we could have a satisfactory debate. If Deputies had a proper appreciation of what the Land Commission has done, we might have had a fairly satisfactory debate on the lines of some of the worth-while speeches that we have heard, urging a reconsideration of the whole question of land resettlement and trying to approach the thing from the point of view of what our future difficulties are likely to be, of how this whole question of land resettlement will have to be viewed after the war, and how it will have to be regarded in view of any changes that may take place in our agricultural economy, for example, or in our external trade. These speeches would, at any rate, indicate that some Deputies are giving thought to the after-war position, while others seem to be content to get up and raise some petty local questions which were such a feature of the debate on this Estimate some years ago. We hear it said that the average man in the country cannot understand why the Land Commission is not doing this, that and the other, and why it cannot always give decisions in the way that the local Deputy would like. I am sure nobody would have anything but contempt for the Land Commission, from the judicial side of it down to the humblest inspector, if it were its policy to do as Deputies required. Surely, the duty of the Land Commission is to carry out the policy given to it by the Government without fear or favour, without partisanship and without regard to political affiliations.
The average man in the country can scarcely be blamed for not understanding why the Land Commission, in present circumstances, no matter how much it might desire to do so, cannot re-start the whole policy of land division, which it dropped at the beginning of the war, if the ordinary Deputies of this House, or those we heard speak in the debate, do not seem to understand it. The fact is that the work of the Land Commission has to be done thoroughly. It has to be done in a way that, when the tenant is put into occupation of his holding, everything is settled and no question will arise. The Land Commission prides itself, and rightly so, on the fact that it has been able to do that work satisfactorily, and out of the thousands and thousands of cases that have gone through very little difficulty has arisen because everything has been done properly, legally and carefully. If you want to do things carefully and properly then the work will take time.
Deputy Childers raised a number of questions such, for example, as the size of holdings. It is the policy of the Government to create on such land as can be acquired by the Land Commission the maximum number of economic holdings. It is the view of the Land Commission—it has a long experience on this matter and its view has been accepted by the Government and it is also the opinion of the Department of Agriculture—that over most of the country, outside the really congested districts, a holding to be economic in present conditions should contain about 25 statute acres of good arable land. That is the policy that is being worked by the Land Commission. Deputy Childers asked why would not the Land Commission spend more money on improving the land divided, on repairing field drains, for example, on improving pasture grasses and so on so as to bring the land up to the level of the best land around the land that is being divided. Well, of course, one difficulty is finance. The Land Commission, even with its present duties, is one of the most costly Departments of State. A considerable amount of its expenditure on improvement works is irrecoverable. We may take it that if it were to undertake further improvements of the kind envisaged by Deputy Childers, a greatly increased financial burden would be thrown on the State in respect of Land Commission operations. Most of this expenditure, I believe, would be irrecoverable, and, naturally, it could not be confined to the divided land. The tenants on the adjoining lands, who purchased their holdings long ago, would demand to know why these particular advantages should be denied to them, so that eventually all tenants would, presumably, participate in this land improvement scheme that the Deputy has in mind. It should be borne in mind that a great deal of the land that the Land Commission is dividing, and has divided, is not by any means inferior land. It is very often some of the best land in the country.
Deputy O'Sullivan raised the question of flooding, and Deputy Curran referred to particular cases on the banks of the Suir. In all these cases the Land Commission is anxious to be as helpful as possible. It has spent thousands and thousands of pounds on the repair of embankments to help tenants whose lands were damaged. Every case is gone into carefully, and frequently other Departments, such, for example, as the Board of Works, are brought in. The trouble is that in a great number of these cases it would be utterly uneconomic to spend the amount of money that would be necessary to mend matters. We can only hope that, when the findings of the recent Drainage Commission are implemented in law, and when national machinery is set up, it will be possible to deal with the drainage matters that Deputies are interested in—Deputy Curran in particular—and that it will be on the basis of a national scheme. In any case, I would like to inform Deputy Curran that the Land Commission has decided to take no action with regard to the Tybroghney embankments, and that further consideration of the matter must await the proposed drainage legislation. As regards Portlaw, the Land Commission is not responsible for the repair of these embankments, but is considering what assistance it will give. Already, a considerable amount has been spent, and the land is already charged with advances to repay part of the expenditure. There is a limit, therefore, to the amount of money which the Land Commission can advance for the drainage of such lands, not anything like what could be done under a national scheme covering a wide area and having a large number of tenants participating. Embankments are a problem, and always will be a problem, so that it would be quite impossible for the Department of Lands to satisfy all Deputies and all owners in the matter. It has always tried to do its best with the staff at its disposal, and will continue to do so.
There is also the question of financial restriction. When the decisions that I mentioned in my opening remarks were made about restricting operations, the Land Commission had commitments for very large sums of money. But new commitments, as I say, have been excluded and, even in the case of urgent matters which fall to be dealt with, there will naturally be the question whether the scheme is economic and whether, even if it is, in present circumstances the Exchequer can provide the necessary money.
Deputy Childers raised the question also of an inquiry into the results of land division and I think it was referred to by other speakers. I should like to say that personally I would welcome such an inquiry, but I fear that at present the Land Commission have not the staff, nor have they the time nor the opportunity to carry out such an inquiry in the way we would wish. I have indicated that, no matter how we are restricted with regard to new commitments, we have old commitments, and not only in respect of the actual acquisition and re-sale of land; we have obligations and commitments to all the tenants throughout the country. We have to attend to their business, and it comes to a huge volume every day. We have no staff to set free for the purpose of making the investigation and I fear that the time could not be spared.
I understand that the Minister for Agriculture has been contemplating setting up an inquiry to deal with the question of agriculture after the war; to get a small number of experts to consider on what lines or in what way our agricultural policy should be shaped and what changes may be necessary to meet after-the-war conditions. Such an inquiry, if it be held, may give us some lines of approach to the problem of land resettlement. In any case it must be borne in mind that a huge amount of work has been done. Over 1,750,000 acres of land have been acquired and divided by the State authority; over 1,000,000 since the Irish Government was established. Therefore, as Deputies will realise, a very large proportion of the available land of the country has been already dealt with. Great inroads have been made on whatever reserves of land might be claimed to be necessary for dealing with this problem, and I think that in a comparatively short period of years it ought to be possible to complete it.
We must remember that some years ago when the present Government came into office the whole problem was examined from a legal point of view with a view to seeing what steps would be necessary in order to continue the work of land division in the most thorough-going fashion. No expense was spared in carrying out that policy. Large additional staffs were taken in to have it carried through and new legislation was passed. Although the acquisition of land, has perhaps been made easier, we must remember that we are no longer dealing with the old landlords; we are dealing with our own people, and unless we try to treat them fairly, and even generously from the State point of view, they are likely to contest every inch of ground, to take advantage of every possible legal avenue that is open to them to contest the proceedings.
Very large amounts of land have been taken over and while, as I say, perhaps the actual acquisition has been simplified, distribution has not been simplified. It is still a highly delicate, highly technical problem. Every individual scheme raises its own host of difficulties, all of which have to be settled by the staff of the Land Commission.
I think most Deputies feel, whether they have given expression to the feeling or not, that in most cases the Land Commission inspectors have carried out their work fairly, without fear or favour, in putting these schemes into operation. We had amending Acts; we had the first amending Act passed by the present Government in 1933 and we had that amended in 1936 and 1939 in order to clarify and put beyond dispute the compulsory powers of the Land Commission in regard to the acquisition of untenanted land and the resumption of tenanted land for division. Deputies will remember the discussions and the controversies they gave rise to. But the Act of 1933 or the Act of 1939 or any Land Act that the wit of man could devise will not enable the Land Commission to make a clean sweep forthwith of all the divisible land of the country. In fact, these Acts might be described as removing restrictions which already existed in the code and made resumption simpler. But, while it enabled the Land Commission perhaps, to acquire more land and to acquire it more speedily, the legislation in itself gives very little aid or assistance in helping the Land Commission to give out that land.
We have complaints frequently from Deputies. I warned them that only very urgent and very important matters can receive attention at the present time and, therefore, it is scarcely necessary for me to repeat that the very valuable time of highly-trained and highly-paid officials is often taken up in investigating and reporting on complaints which have really no sound foundation. Generally, the Land Commission, as I say, carries out its work to the satisfaction of the public and to the satisfaction of the parties concerned. There are always disappointed persons. That cannot be helped, and Deputies should have sufficient experience now and be sufficiently mature to understand that the complaints of these disappointed persons must be taken with a grain of salt. The fact is that the work of the Land Commission is carried out in the broad light of day by experienced officials. They have to stand over their work in the time to come and I think that in almost 100 per cent. of the cases the attitude of the Land Commission official or inspector is: "When I am leaving the service and going out on pension, wherever I may reside, I want at any rate to look back on my work in the Department as having been good work. I do not want to be associated with work that has to be torn up again and re-started. I do not want to be responsible for schemes that are not likely to be successful. I realise my duty to the country and to the Department and the only interest I have and what I should like to achieve is to make my schemes as good and as sound and as perfect as possible." I do not think it can be denied that that is the attitude of the officials of the Department of Lands.
When representations are made by Deputies, even if Deputies may not so understand it, these representations are always transmitted to the Commissioners; they are always noted for attention on the proper files, and they get due consideration when the time comes. Unfortunately, they are not always based on that intimate, personal knowledge that one would wish. It might, perhaps, be said that no matter what investigation Deputies may carry out personally in particular cases, they could scarcely ever reach that state of knowledge which the Land Commission inspector, who is specially equipped to deal with the work, has. Deputies should bear in mind, that they are not likely to have the same knowledge, that they cannot have it in the ordinary way, of things that the Land Commission inspector has.
It has been suggested that, when a scheme is put into operation, an opportunity should be given to those concerned to make their case at the time. My reply to that is that all representations sent in through Deputies, Senators, the clergy, or through other channels, are filed and considered when the scheme is being drawn up by the inspector. The inspector is not the complete judge in the matter, either. The local inspector, having drawn up his scheme, has to refer it to his official superiors. To suggest that the proper way to divide land would be to put an announcement in the local newspaper, advising all and sundry that the Land Commission inspector was about to divide such and such land and hold a public inquiry, would be to reduce the proceedings to a laughing-stock. It is surprising that any responsible person could suggest such a thing.
It is well recognised that no scheme can be satisfactory to all concerned, no scheme can be 100 per cent. satisfactory, but I think it has been recognised nearly always that schemes are as good as could be expected, that they are as satisfactory as human ingenuity could make them. We cannot, perhaps, be absolutely perfect. One suggestion was that the end of our troubles would be reached if the public were to decide, presumably by voting for the local applicants, who should get land. I can imagine no proposal more absurd or more silly than that, but that suggestion has been made.
The actual position is that the local inspector first makes a close study and a census of the whole district, within a radius of a mile or two of the land to be divided. He has to consider the claims of all applicants and all uneconomic holders, whether they are applicants or not. He has to plan improvement works, such as roads, fences, drains and buildings, and apportion the rents to be fixed on the different divisions. This is a matter of special difficulty and importance, as the sanction of the Commissioners must be frequently obtained for resale at a loss. It would be very difficult to exaggerate the delicacy and difficulty of this work of preparing a scheme of division. It is often done under constant pressure from Deputies, the local clergy and others. When the scheme is prepared by special inspectors, selected for this work, it is checked and approved by the inspector in charge of the area and by the divisional inspector before it is examined at headquarters by Commissioners. Questions such as works charges and questions dealing with survey and marking, with rights of way and boundaries, have all to be settled in the office and therefore, if the inspector has done his job properly, as I maintain he has in all cases, the Land Commission know more about the circumstances of the allottee recommended on the scheme and also of the applicants whose claims have had to be rejected than anyone outside the office can possibly know.
Local congests and applicants generally will tell the inspectors what they will not tell their neighbours, or even their T.D. or their clergy. The Commissioners have before them particulars of ages of applicants and the ages of their wives and children, their financial circumstances, the amount of cash in the bank—the deposit receipts are inspected—the help to be had from America or elsewhere, particulars of stock, particulars of crops on holdings, particulars of the area of the holding and the poor law valuation, and the manner in which the house and holding are being kept. We have some very industrious Deputies here, but I wonder how many of them could accumulate that mass of information in connection with the cases of the applicants they are good enough to recommend in such large numbers for the consideration of the Land Commission?
Sometimes, as we know, Deputies recommend more than one person for a vacant holding. That is a sagacious proceeding. What I want to emphasise is that even where a Deputy—it does not often happen—has personal knowledge of, and acquaintance with, applicants and all their circumstances, he is not likely to be in a butter position to judge, because his responsibility is entirely a different one from the responsibility of the inspector who is charged with putting a scheme into operation and who has to answer to the heads of his department and show that the scheme is right and proper in all respects. The considerations a Deputy has in mind are entirely different. It was generally recognised that once a scheme was approved and brought into operation, that was the end of it. Deputies, as intelligent and experienced men, knew that the scheme was carried out—all schemes are—in accordance with Government policy.
There is no reason why in any particular case the local inspector should depart from his instructions. If he does, he will be dealt with by his official superior. Deputies realise that the representations which they send in receive due consideration, but once a scheme has been implemented, that finishes the matter. There are bound to be disappointed people. Everybody cannot get land, because there is not enough land to go around. Deputies must make allowances for that. We have had a case in County Tipperary which has created a certain amount of excitement. I should like to refer to it because it seems to illustrate some of the points I have been making regarding land division and the method of carrying schemes into operation, which the Land Commission procedure demands.
I explained already, in reply to a question in the House, that this particular land, called the Ryan estate, at Ballyholohan, near Emly, did not lend itself to be divided into standard holdings, nor did the quality of the land entitle it to be all regarded as good agricultural land suitable for division. I explained that congestion was not so real or so acute in the immediate vicinity of Emly as in adjacent districts, and that it was not in the public interest, nor would it be in the interests of the cottiers, to allot small separate plots consisting almost entirely of wet land, as was the case on the greater part of this estate. Accordingly, a scheme was brought into operation whereby four economic holdings were provided for migrants, one for the former herd, with one enlargement and one accommodation plot.
I should say with regard to migrants that in order to get them to leave their particular areas and make their lands available for re-arrangement among local congests, the Land Commission has to be prepared to offer them something. You cannot deal with them on a basis of merely offering them something which is the exact equivalent in cash, in the view of the Land Commission experts. You have to have regard to the amenities and the advantages which they have in their home holdings. They have been associated with the home place over a long period of years. They have been carrying on a particular kind of farming there. They have the assistance of their neighbours. They are going into a strange country, even when they go into a neighbouring county, perhaps. In this particular case, certainly, they were not received with any great welcome. They are going into a foreign country, one might almost say, very often with no experience of the conditions which they are likely to be up against. They are losing, perhaps, certain advantages, if it were only that intimate knowledge of conditions at the home which they have to leave behind.
On the Ryan estate, the building sites and the actual location of the arable land, which was upland, put certain limitations upon the scheme. I may say, also, that Deputies, Senators, and other prominent persons recommended these migrants for consideration. They were all very fine types of men, some of them with splendid Old I.R.A. service. Apart from that, there was no unusual pressure from the local cottiers, to whom the situation was explained. They were told that the scheme for the O'Connor estate, which it was intended to divide, and which has since been divided, was held up for the moment through legal difficulties, but that their claims would be duly considered when that came up for consideration. That has been done. Four ex-I.R.A. local landless men and one other ex-I.R.A. landless man from over the Limerick border have been accommodated on the O'Connor estate, together with one holding for the herd, two enlargements and two accommodation plots.
I mentioned that it is the duty of inspectors to interview the applicants and in the case of uneconomic holders or others obviously entitled, in the order of priority, to special consideration, to consider their claims even though they make no application. In this particular case, there were 172 applicants and I think practically all these were interviewed privately. I have seen the Schedule made out by the inspector of the applicants, giving all the information required to come to a decision on a particular applicant's case. I have examined it carefully and I am quite satisfied, as I have already stated in the House, that this scheme was carried out properly and fairly, with no regard to any other consideration than Government policy. A great many of the persons who made application, and whose names appear on lists subsequently supplied to me were persons without land, stock, capital or any means whatever, practically, to enable them to work land if they should get it, but in very many cases, in addition to not being agriculturists in the proper sense, or having the necessary experience of agriculture, they lived outside the distance laid down for eligibility. In other cases, they had some land but were above the valuation limit. On lists which were supplied to me after the whole scheme had been carried into operation, when an agitation started in the district, I find that there were 18 alleged uneconomic holders. Of these, three were provided for on the O'Connor Estate—they were not really uneconomic holders but landless men; five had valuations over £20; the others included a postman, a shoe-maker, an egg dealer and insurance agent, a small shopkeeper, and the heir-apparent to a shop and public-house. Some others were too far distant to be considered for enlargements. As well as the 18 alleged uneconomic holders, there was a miscellaneous assortment of persons described as "residents of Emly," one a smith and another described as "a good employer of labour." In addition to these two classes, we had 31 landless men and 29 cottiers.
I would like to emphasise that only a very, very limited number of representations were made to the Land Commission, before the scheme was put into operation, in favour of local people. Furthermore, as I have pointed out, the migrants who were selected were strongly recommended by very responsible persons, some of whom have not been ashamed to appear on the platform in an agitation against these migrants. So that, all the local information which is available to clergy, Deputies or Senators was available to the Land Commission inspectors, who are experienced men and who have a very good knowledge of the area. Moreover, this was not a hastily carried out scheme. There was plenty of time for the fullest consideration and very careful thought was given to it.
Deputy Morrissey says that local opinion as to the suitability of applicants should have been considered and he speaks of some people being better entitled. I think he rather gave the case away against himself when he admitted that this was the first occasion on which he had found it necessary to find fault with the way in which Land Commission schemes were prepared. He seemed to be rather apologetic, and I think rightly so, for refer ring to the matter. If the authority of the Land Commission is not to be preserved, if they are not to be regarded as the deciding body in this matter, who is going to decide? Are we going to have the position that the applicants are to be marched into the village hall with the local Deputies, the fife and drum band at their heads, and a vote taken as to who is to get land, or is it to be carried on in the normal way?
Deputy Bennett said that the local uneconomic holders were not considered. I suggest that what I have just said will show that he had not that intimate knowledge of the personal circumstances of the applicants to enable him to say whether they were or were not considered.
