The present Minister is the fifth or sixth—certainly the fifth— Deputy in the Fianna Fáil Party who has occupied the responsible position of Minister for Lands since the Fianna Fáil Government came into office. He is, however, the first Minister who has got up in the House in my hearing and more or less in very understandable language said in effect that he had really no responsibility for the activities of the commissioners who, if this Vote is passed, will have the spending of £1,500,000 at their disposal. I do not know whether the Minister is trying to pull the legs of Deputies when he says he has no real responsibility for the working of the commissioners —in other words, in his own language, that he cannot interfere with the activities of the commissioners in administering the various Land Acts passed by this House and by the British Parliament, previous to the coming into operation of this House. I know that the Minister has a very good knowledge of the position in rural Ireland, more so than any of his other colleagues who have occupied this very important post, and understands the background of the land agitation and the reason why this agitation is being carried on and will be carried on in every constituency so long, as in the opinion of the local people, there is untenanted land available for acquisition and division. The Minister in reply to a number of questions put down in the usual way in this House during the last 12 months has led it to be understood that, so far as land acquisition in the Midlands is concerned, such activities have been entirely suspended. I would like the Minister to tell the House whether the same position still exists and how long that position is likely to exist so far as Laoighise, Offaly and the midland counties are concerned.
It is true, I understand, that the land acquisition and division activities of the Land Commission are still being carried on in the Gaeltacht counties. But I cannot understand why the same activities are not being carried on in the midland counties where there is still a large acreage of untenanted land available for acquisition and division. Deputy Commons said, and I think correctly, that the principal purpose for the creation of the Land Commission and its continuance was the relief of congestion. If that is the policy for which the Land Commission still exists, some very sound reasons must be given as to why that activity has been suspended for some time. I would be satisfied to hear from the Minister when it is likely to restart.
On the Estimate for this Department last year I referred to the fact that Land Commission activity had been going on in the case of certain estates in my constituency since the coming into operation of the 1923 Act. I know of one glaring case where the Minister for Finance, who was then Minister for Lands, assured this House that he was putting a certain section into an Act passed during his régime for the purpose of acquiring and dividing a certain estate which the commissioners had been prevented from dividing as a result of a decision in the courts. Surely it should have been possible to get that matter put right since 1936 and to have this estate divided. But, in answer to a question addressed to him two weeks ago by Deputy Flanagan, the Minister said that the position was just the same as it was in 1936 when that particular section was inserted in the Act. There must be something radically wrong when the Minister's intentions cannot be given effect to even under an amending Act in an area where there is very acute congestion. Deputy Gorry knows this particular estate very well and the extent to which congestion exists in that area.
Is it to be understood that, because of a decision given in the courts previous to 1936, although an amending Act was subsequently passed, nothing can be done to have this estate acquired and divided? I am not sure, but I believe that a scheme for the division of the estate was prepared and sanctioned by the commissioners, but could not be put into operation, or at least it has not yet been put into operation. What is the trouble in regard to that particular type of case?
I know of another case which has been brought under the personal notice of the Minister during the last two years where, as a result of agitation in the locality, the landowner concerned, without any threats so far as I am aware, agreed to sell his estate, including a large acreage of turbary, to the Land Commission. Deputy Flanagan raised this matter some time ago on the adjournment and the Minister wound up his speech by definitely suggesting—he did not say that Deputies were involved in the matter, and I certainly was not—that this landowner was forced by an agitation and by threats from people in the area to agree to sell. I know of no such threats in this particular case. I am referring to the Trench estate at Ballybrittas. If Deputy Gorry speaks in this debate, let him say if he knows of the landowner concerned being threatened. All the Deputies concerned were brought into this case because the usual land agitation was started in the area. Deputy Flanagan, being a very young and energetic Deputy, took a leading part in that agitation. Is it suggested by the Minister or by anybody else that, because Deputy Flanagan held a few public meetings in the area he, by his eloquence and by his conversations with the landowner concerned, actually forced the Landowner to agree to sell to the Land Commission? The Minister knows very well that the landowner did agree to sell. All I want to know is if any offer was made at any time by the Land Commission for the purchase of this estate and, if not, why not?
I understand from the Minister's speeches in the House and from conversations with him that the real reason why the Land Commission's acquisition activities have been suspended is because the Minister or the commissioners, and they know more about this matter than I do, feel that they could not acquire land at a reasonable price to enable them to allocate economic holdings at reasonable rents to those lucky enough to get divisions of land. Does that position still exist? I know that the price of land adjacent to towns and villages that has been sold in my constituency was far above the pre-war price; but I think that land that has been sold in recent times in the rural portions of my constituency has been sold at very little over the pre-war price. I dare say the Land Commission, if they acquire an estate or untenanted land, will not be expected to pay any more for that land than the landowner would get if he sold the land by free sale in the usual way. A decision will have to be taken by the Minister or by the commissioners at a reasonably early date to resume their usual activities and to complete the work for which the Land Commission was established, namely, the relief of congestion, so far as the commissioners can complete that job with the untenanted land at their disposal. I know their job is a difficult one.
Deputy Commons gave the Minister his opinion about an economic holding. I am sure the Minister will agree that an economic holding in the western part of the country is quite different from an economic holding in the Midlands. Deputy Commons talked about 30 or 40 acres being an economic holding. You can have 30 or 40 acres of bad land or bog land, either in the West or in the Midlands, with a valuation of anything from £5 to £10. So far as I know, that would not be regarded, and has not been regarded by the Land Commission as an economic holding in my constituency or in any of the adjoining counties.
An economic holding, as I understand it, according to the Land Commission interpretation, is a holding with a valuation of £20 or £25, which may mean from 25 to 40 acres of fairly good land. Of course you can have 100 acres of bad or bog land with a valuation of £20 or £25. In any case, there are good, sound, commonsense reasons for suggesting that a smaller holding with a smaller valuation might be regarded as an economic holding because of the smaller acreage of land available for division in the West as compared with the midland or southern counties.
The Minister brought in a Bill within the last two years—I voted for the measure—to give him power to take over holdings from persons who, in the opinion of the commissioners, do not work those holdings to the best possible advantage. I should like to hear from the Minister, if he has the figures at his disposal, the extent to which that Act has been used. Would it be correct to say that, generally speaking, all the persons who had not been making proper use of their holdings before the coming into operation of that Act have now been dispossessed and better tenants put in their places? I know of a few cases in my own constituency where individuals who, apparently, got legal tenancy of holdings never went into occupation of the houses on them. I know that in three cases up to quite recently they were not occupied. I presume it is the intention of the Minister to put decent, hard-working citizens into occupation of these holdings and not allow them, in these days of food shortage, to be left nominally in the possession of people who will not properly work them.
What is the present procedure of the commissioners with reference to selecting contractors for the building of houses on divided land? Is there any advertisement issued locally or nationally inviting suitable and qualified building contractors to tender? In some cases in my own area it was brought to my notice that contractors, whose qualifications were of a doubtful kind, were given these contracts. I approached the Minister by way of written communication and Parliamentary Question with reference to one such contractor. I had evidence that he was unwilling to pay to the men working on his building contracts, even the miserably low rate of wages that were paid to agricultural labourers.
It would pay the Minister to investigate these matters. I was informed that the Minister at one time was a qualified building contractor and he would know the right type of man to carry out a job of that kind. Is it correct that a contractor selected by the Land Commission is obliged by the terms of his contract to pay the local trade union rate of wages? Have any cases of the failure of such contractors to do so been brought under his notice and what steps, if any, in cases where such complaints are made, are generally taken by the commissioners to compel building contractors to pay the rate of wages normally paid to workers by building contractors in such areas? It would pay the commissioners to get suitable and qualified building contractors for this work. It would save money being spent later in having these houses put into a proper state of repair.
Will the Minister ask the commissioners to furnish him with a return— he could not give the figures off-hand or without reasonable notice—of the number of estates or untenanted lands where the claims of local people have been under active consideration since the 1923 Act came into operation and where the commissioners have not either prepared a scheme or put any scheme of division into operation? It would be a very interesting return. I am certain from what I know of my own constituency that Deputies would be amazed at the number of cases where activity was commenced immediately after the 1923 Act became operative but no division has yet taken place.
There is one matter which affects the Estimate and in my opinion it is a serious matter. I take it that when the Minister for Finance receives Estimates from the different Departments he has to be convinced that the amount asked is a reasonable one and will be spent in the current year. I notice that in sub-head (I) of the Land Commission Estimate—Improvements of Estates—the Minister asks for exactly the same amount for the coming year as was voted for the same purpose in the financial year 1946-47. We were furnished to-day with the Appropriation Accounts for the year 1945-46 and if the Minister will look at them he will find that under this sub-head a considerable amount went back into revenue in 1945-46.
I wonder whether the full amount of the Estimate under this sub-head for 1946-47 was spent for the purpose for which it was voted. Can the Minister give an undertaking that the amount now asked for the improvement of estates will be spent? If he says it will, nobody will be better pleased than I, but there is no use in asking for exactly the same amount as was voted last year, and having a big slice of that money going back into revenue. I regard the amount voted under this sub-head as money very usefully spent. It gives a considerable amount of employment on the making of roads and the building of houses. I shall be pleased if the Minister will tell us that it is the intention of the Land Commission to spend what is now being voted. I should also like to know if it is the intention of the Land Commission to spend as much money on the improvement of estates, the building of houses and the making of roads as was spent in pre-war years.