Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 26 Apr 1950

Vol. 120 No. 8

Estimates for Public Services. - Vote 47—Lands.

Minister for Lands (Mr. Blowick)

I move:—

That a sum not exceeding £855,170 be granted to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending the 31st day of March, 1951, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Minister for Lands and of the Irish Land Commission (44 and 45 Vict., c. 49, Section 46, and c. 71, Section 4; 48 and 49 Vict., c. 73, Sections 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; No. 26 of 1939; No. 12 of 1946; and No. 25 of 1949).

The net Estimate for Lands for the present year (1950-51) represents an increase of £5,330 over the amount voted last year.

The present Estimate follows closely the pattern of last year's Estimate. There are no new sub-heads or outstanding changes. The greates disparities are: (1) an increase of £4,000 in sub-head H (3)—to meet deficiencies in the land bond fund arising from the revision of land annuities on land vested under Land Acts 1923-49; (2) an increase of £1,534 on sub-head A—to meet normal increases in salaries, etc., and (3) a decrease of £600 in sub-head G—to meet fees payable on warrants for collection of arrears.

Sub-head I, which deals with expenditure on improvement of estates, is to remain unchanged at last year's figure of £354,800. This figure was not fully expended last year on account of the unavoidable temporary hold-up of acquisition proceedings pending the passing of the Land Bill and also because of difficulty which was experienced early in the year in recruiting adequate labour. The passing of the Bill will stimulate the output of improvement works and it is expected that the Estimate of £354,800 for improvements will be fully utilised this year.

More than half the entire Estimate for Lands is allocated to sub-heads H (1), H (2), H (3) and H (4)— which are required to make good the deficiencies in the land bond fund. These deficiencies arise through the halving of land annuities and through other State aids to land purchase, namely, awards by the Judicial Commissioner from the Costs Fund and State contributions to vendors of estates, over and above the prices repayable by the tenant purchasers. A slight deficiency also arises from the writing-off of annuities on lands which have been permanently submerged as a result of erosion.

Some of the other sub-heads involve token amounts only. These have been inserted to meet possible but unlikely contingencies. The remaining sub-heads scarcely call for explanation as the changes this year are in no way out of the ordinary.

During the prolonged debates on the Land Bill, I dealt very fully with the main activities and the present policy of the Land Commission. I do not propose to hold Deputies up by making a long opening speech on this Estimate but it would not be right to let the occasion pass without giving the House details of the work done last year and of the prospects for the immediate future.

It was very gratifying to me, during the recent debates, to hear that the whole House endorses the present policy of concentrating on the relief of congestion. That evil is a hang-over from the bad times through which our country passed and it is akin to the problem of slums in cities and towns. Until congestion is substantially solved it will be held as a bad mark against our competence as a selfgoverning nation and it will be a constant source of complaints and censure both inside and outside this House.

I have no time whatever for the pessimists who think that adequate progress can never be made for the relief of congestion. Two years ago when I first came to the House with a Lands Estimate, I pointed out that the reserves of suitable land on hands of the Land Commission for allotment, had been exhausted and that it would take three years before adequate progress at land settlement could be achieved. In general, that forecast is proving somewhat conservative. I am very pleased to be able to tell the House that my expectations as regards land settlement progress for 1949-50, have been greatly exceeded.

Last year, although the Land Commission were seriously handicapped by the delay in passing the Land Bill, they succeeded in bringing very substantial and permanent relief to a total of 1,250 congests. That is the number of congests whose holdings were enlarged or rearranged during the year. The livelihood of each and every one of these congests had been vastly improved and made secure. They are no longer dependent on miserable patches of rundale or uneconomic holdings for a bare existence. They can in future look forward to an economic return for their time and labour and to a decent standard of living for themselves and their families.

In all these 1,250 cases, comprehensive schemes of improvement works were carried out as part of the resettlement operations. Wherever necessary, dwellings, out-offices, roads, drains, fences, pumps and so on, have been constructed or repaired or this work is in course of execution and will be completed as quickly as possible.

So that these and other similar congests could be given economic holdings the Land Commission migrated landholders to new holdings. Their vacated lands have in most cases been absorbed already in enlarged or rearranged holdings. In the remaining cases the vacated land has been let to congests nearby who have thus received the first benefits of land settlement and will get additional benefits through improvement works and final resettlement, with the shortest possible delay.

Many Deputies who are not familiar with conditions in the congested counties cannot possibly have an idea of the amount of work and expenditure which goes into an average rearrangement scheme. Apart from all the worry the inspector has in getting agreement amongst the tenants themselves to the proposed rearrangement, he has at the same time to visualise what the area will look like after the slum conditions have been eliminated. He has to ensure that, in so far as is humanly possible, the holdings have to be in one compact rectangle. Sometimes this is not possible, as in order to distribute the good land and the bad in a just and fair way it may be necessary to have the holding in two portions, but seldom more. Then comes the task of constructing a suitable road or roads through the area, located so that the new dwelling-houses will be in the healthiest position and the most convenient from the point of view of the holdings. He also has to advise on the lay-out of the out-offices. Then the fences, stone walls, sod banks or wire and paling, as the case may be, have to be erected. Drainage of low-lying wet areas has to be done efficiently, entailing the erection of culverts, bridges, etc. While all this has been going on, the supervision of the erection of the new dwelling-houses and out-offices has to be closely watched, and 1,000 and one queries have to be answered and odds and ends of help given to the tenants who, in most cases, are themselves engaged in the erection of the dwelling-houses and out-offices. This, I hope, will convey in a small way what one rearrangement scheme means and give Deputies an idea of the spade-work that the inspector has to undertake in such schemes.

Altogether, upwards of 28,000 acres were allocated during the year in 1,800 allotments for various uses. Of this area, approximately 24,000 acres are located in the congested counties.

It is no mean achievement for any Department to have brought substantial and permanent benefits of this kind, which cannot be measured in terms of money alone, to so many allottees and their families. Apart altogether from workmen to whom employment was given on improvement works, up to 7,000 deserving individuals in the allottees' households have benefited through these activities of the Land Commission. While this is a very substantial achievement, I regard it only as a beginning and as an indication of what can and will be done in the future.

When the Land Bill, 1949, is passed, the rearrangement of holdings will be carried out more quickly and I shall not be satisfied until there is a big speed-up in the settling of all uneconomic holdings, particularly those in rundale and detached plots. This is the most pressing work that the Land Commission has before it. Its fulfilment will clear away from our countryside blots which have remained with us far too long. The problem is a big one and it will take time to bring a solution. Deputies who know the serious difficulties involved, will appreciate that real progress can only be made by persevering with a well-ordered programme. There is intense pressure to have too many cases handled at the one time; this is leading to confusion and it has compelled me to adopt a priority system which will deal with the worst cases first. I hope Deputies on all sides of the House will continue their co-operation with me in securing that the energy of the Land Commission will be diverted to and helped along the path of relief of congestion.

Every hour's time of every official on the staff will be needed to make headway against the vast amount of congestion still to be relieved.

I mentioned earlier in this statement that land acquisition is held up temporarily pending the enactment of the Land Bill. The proposed change in method of price-fixation has unavoidably thrown the acquisition machine out of gear. At present an area of over 10,000 acres is held up and further progress cannot be made on these and similar cases until the Bill is passed.

During the past year the work of inspecting, valuing and instituting proceedings for acquisition and resumption was pressed forward to the utmost. An area of 59,000 acres on 424 estates was inspected and valued. Proceedings were instituted for 408 estates comprising 41,500 acres. The reserve of useful land on hands of the Land Commission is still low but there has been a good intake into the acquisition machine and the passing of the Land Bill should make substantial areas available in the near future. I hope also that the provisions in the Land Bill for purchase of land for cash will substantially increase the volume of land available to the Land Commission for migrations and rearrangement schemes. The prospects for the coming year are bright but Deputies should not expect spectacular output for a little while longer as it will take some time to implement the Bill fully and to get the acquisition machine working at full blast.

Good progress is also being maintained in the vesting of lands in tenants and allottees. Last year 14,300 holdings and allotments and 1,900 rights of turbary were vested. This output is considerable but it is barely sufficient as 85,000 other cases still remain to be vested. It is essential to press on as quickly as possible with this work. Otherwise the machine will get clogged with new cases and will break down.

Inspections into the use of allotments continued during the year and at present about 1,000 allottees are under observation. There has been a marked improvement in the working of allotments and I hope this improvement will continue. The Land Commission have no desire to deprive any allottee of his allotment but no other course is open to them in the case of an allottee who persists in misusing his allotment.

The position as to payment of land annuities is very satisfactory. The total arrears at 31st March, 1950, amounted to £197,200 which represents only 0.5 per cent. of the total sum collectable since 1933 viz. £38,564,154.

In conclusion, I should say that it will be necessary to come to the House later in the year with a Supplementary Estimate to finance the operation of the new Land Bill.

Mr. Moylan

I move that the Estimate be referred back for reconsideration.

The Minister needs to be congratulated on his tactic of bringing the land Estimate before the Dáil immediately after the discussion on the Land Bill. The land Estimate has mysteriously moved from the bottom of the class to the top, I suppose in the hope that all the Deputies will have exhausted their ammunition in the discussion on the Land Bill.

Mr. Blowick

It follows the same course as the last two years.

Mr. Moylan

If the Minister stopped we would get on far more quickly. The Land Bill appears, somewhat like Hamlet, all over the Minister's brief and I expected it would. With all respect, the Minister in his physical proportions reminds me of a famous individual, Tony Weller, and in his attitude on this Estimate I would not be surprised if he were a lineal descendant of that famous individual.

Mr. Blowick

Tell us where to laugh.

Mr. Moylan

In the case of Bardell and Pickwick the advice given by Tony Weller to the defendant is: "Never mind the character. Stick to the alibi." That is a good piece of advice, mind you, to give to a number of Deputies on the Government Benches. I can imagine the Minister discussing with the Bardells of the Land Commission how to disembowel the Opposition and confound their knavish tricks. I can imagine the Minister in his breezy way saying: "Never mind performance. Stick to the alibi. We can say we could not do anything because, after all, we were held up; we did not have the Land Bill." I suppose if there was not that there would be something else.

The Minister in Volume 114, column 2085 said that the increase in the Vote was due to the speeding up of land division. That was last year if I may refer to it in order to drive home my point. That was an amazing speed all right. There was a preliminary inspection, of course, of 40,000 acres, a detailed inspection of 25,000 acres, and the subject of acquisition 45,000 acres, that is 110,000 acres. He makes a speech about the tremendous acreage there was, glossing over the fact that the lands actually acquired at that particular time were 8,196 acres. Further on in that debate the Minister told Deputy Beegan in Volume 114, column 1122 that the division of land was completely and absolutely stopped during the war years. Leaving out 1940 which was a war year when the Land Commission divided 38,637 acres when all activities of the Land Commission had ceased, by some peculiar operation of inertia, in the following five years, 1941, 1942, 1943, 1944, and 1945, 22,574 acres were divided every year. These were divided during the war years when the Government was preoccupied entirely with the safety of the people and when multiple obstacles had arisen in every Department, and particularly in the Land Commission.

I always notice that, in the Minister's statements on Bills or Estimates, he seems to be preoccupied with battles which have been decisively won or irretrievably lost. He is always swinging punches at opponents who have retired from the ring years ago, apparently without his being aware of the fact. In his final statement on the Land Bill, which is the alibi, the Minister said that he proposed, in introducing the Estimate this year, to speak definitely on the policy of the Land Commission and that he would answer certain questions which I put to him during the debate on the Land Bill. We have the Estimate now and we have it under conditions that make a very definite change in the cost of Land Commission transactions.

The Minister has mentioned a large sum as being payable as a result of the halving of the annuities. That sum will be further increased nowadays under the terms of the Land Bill by the fact that, in future, when market value is paid, when compensation for disturbance and for damage is paid and when the balance of the amounts due to the State are not to be collected, there will be a much heavier deficit in land bonds, however that deficit is to be met, and a much heavier burden on the taxpayer, and, if all this money which we see in the Estimate is to be increased, I am afraid it will completely eat up the Estimate and that we shall have to have Supplementary Estimates to provide for the real work of the Land Commission.

The Minister did promise to clear up policy and to answer any questions put to him during the debate on the Land Bill. The questions I put to him then and put to him now are whether he agrees that, in view of the fact that the taxpayer has to bear such a huge added burden, the taxpayer has the right to ask how long more he will have to carry this burden, how much land is needed for the Minister's purposes and for how many years will there be a continuance of the present system before everybody is satisfied that congestion has been adequately dealt with? The Minister insists in everything he says that he has given the Land Commission a new look in relation to congestion. One would think that a migrant was never taken out of a congest county before, or that there was no distribution or rearrangement of land before, and that the main effort of the Land Commission was not, as it actually was, directed towards the relief of congestion from the very start. It has been said by some Deputies— wrongly, of course—that the Land Commission was set up to relieve congestion. Of course, it was not, but, once its main purpose, the transfer of ownership to tenants, had been served, the Land Commission's work was directed towards the relief of congestion, and that is the manner in which Land Commission activities were operated during the régime of the previous Government.

The Minister says we must not look for anything spectacular for the present. During the war years, with all our difficulties, the Land Commission divided 20,000 acres per year. This year, the Minister has hardly exceeded that amount, in spite of all his promises. I want to put it to the Minister that the reason he has not been able to increase the amount of land divided is that the pool of land at his disposal was too small. Last year in spite of all his efforts, the amount of land purchased and acquired by the Land Commission was only 80,000 acres. That is a very gloomy outlook, to my mind, for the coming year, up to 1951.

The Minister was very glib when he was in opposition about what he would do and could do, and one of his ideas was to utilise the land annuities every year for the purchase and acquisition of land. It seems to me that the real explanation of the Land Bill and the change in the method of land acquisition and resumption is that the Minister at last realises the difficulties of the Land Commission and the difficulties of his predecessors, and, when he realises the difficulties his predecessors had to meet, he should also admit the goodwill and honesty of purpose which he denies to these previous Ministers.

Let us be quite clear that the relief of congestion is not something newly designed by the Minister. It was the policy in the Land Commission long before the Minister ever expected to set his foot there. Many congests were migrated from the congested areas into the better lands. When the Minister says that migrants have been taken this year out of congested areas to make room for those who are left behind, I think that if he had done anything spectacular he would give us the numbers of those who have been migrated, the counties from which they have been migrated and where they have been sent to.

This document which the Minister read is a much more literary production than last year's brief. I had to complain of the statement made by the Minister last year, the shortness and the inadequacy of it. The statement this year is a bit better. There is, however, one magnificent insertion, a description of the work done by the inspectors. It sounds to me like the rumblings of rearrangement. I read some time ago a story of Rommel's campaign in Africa, the tremendous achievements he had made, his successes and the methods he used. If some really good literary man would write the life of a Land Commission inspector in the congested areas it would be a story which would be far more spectacular, far more interesting, far more adventurous than anything written about Rommel.

This is the most beautiful thing I have ever heard of. I think we should make a picture of it. At any rate, the Minister in tactics, if not in strategy, has at least equalled Rommel in bringing in his Estimate immediately after the Land Bill. He knows how exhausted we are hammering against the stone wall of his rather recalcitrant mind. I think that this document, no matter how it is written, is actually a confession of failure. In spite of the fact that the Minister said that all Land Commission activity, all land division was completely and absolutely stopped during the war years, in spite of all the promises of the Minister and all the short cuts he has taken towards cutting red tape, he has hardly succeeded in this year of peace in dividing any more land than was divided in any one of the war years under all the difficulties and when, as he said, every activity was stopped.

The Minister is not to be congratulated on the achievement of the Land Commission. When he has got his Land Bill we expect him when he comes again to us, if he does come, to do far better for the congests of whom he says he is the friend. I have quoted Dickens, and there are two other Dickensian characters, Codlin and Short. I think Deputy Commons is Short if the Minister is Codlin, and that both of them are the absolute friends of the congests. Beware of the Greeks and their gifts. I am doubtful about the Minister and his success.

Mr. Commons

I agree to some extent with Deputy Moylan with regard to the Minister's introducing his Estimate after the Land Bill and the long discussion we had on land. When a measure of that kind is going through it is usual to wander slightly from the path of the Bill and discuss congestion and land problems from A to Z. Therefore there is not much that anybody can say on this Estimate without repeating what he said during the past month or six weeks. The only thing I want to bring to the Minister's notice is that the pool of land which was created and held up, some of it for a long number of years, by previous Governments has been almost all divided up amongst congests. In other words, the land that we had has now been divided up and, as far as possible, congestion settled in as many areas as possible. Therefore, the problem now confronts the Minister of providing extra land, of creating an extra pool of land to deal with the problem that will face him. Unless we have land to play around with, unless land comes into the hands of the Land Commission, it is so much humbug for any Minister or Deputy or Government to talk about the relief of congestion, which is supposed to be the big job of the Land Commission. I am afraid that the pool of land coming into the hands of the Land Commission is coming in too slowly and that the efforts being made to speed it up by the system of compulsory acquisition are not satisfactory.

I give credit to the Minister for the efforts he has made to get land in another way under the system which he has introduced of getting it in the open market. We can criticise the former system as being rather slow, cumbersome and awkward. We can criticise those who administered it as not doing it in the manner we think they should. We cannot see anything of the new system because it has not yet become law. I would, however, say to the Minister in all seriousness that he will have to get more land by the new system of going into the open market than was acquired under the old system. The old method of compulsory acquisition was not fast enough to make a decent effort to clear up congestion in the time that we should like to see it cleared up. The procedure with regard to the acquisition and resumption was entirely and absolutely too slow. As I have tried to point out many times, I see no reason whatsoever, when the Land Commission decide to acquire or resume any portion of land by compulsory methods, why a definite decision could not be reached within a period of 18 months or at least two years. There may be reasons and there may be genuine cause for delays because the transfer of property is a very serious complicated matter and land legislation is very complicated and there may, therefore, be justification for a reasonable delay. However, I see no justification whatsoever for some of the delays that have taken place and are still taking place in the Land Commission. It is pretty annoying to Deputies on all sides of the House to have to put down questions to the Minister for Lands time and time again. It is also very annoying to the congests, who are anxious to get land to relieve their problems, to receive the same repeated answers time and time again. We are Irishmen and we are an impatient race. We are easily stirred up and we are very easily antagonised. If we do not get our rights the first thing we are inclined to do is to fight for them.

That may have been a useful attribute and an ideal thing under an alien Government but I think we should never be forced to have to do it under a native Government. Unfortunately, we have had to do it. Both of the Governments which we have had in this country passed laws and these laws had to be broken in order to get the Land Commission into action— even then it was slow in getting into action. I would, however, definitely dislike to see people ever getting the idea into their heads again that they would have to use force or threats or break the law in any way in order to get that to which they are justly entitled. If some of us who come from the heart of congested areas, or any Deputy, could go out and get the farmers from such areas in Ireland into a united organisation—bound together like, for instance, any of the trade unions—and demand their rights before a Labour Court and a labour tribunal, then I have no doubt whatsoever but that much more heed would be given to the problem. The trouble is that everybody knows that that is impossible and that it cannot be done. It has been tried time and time again in the past and it has failed. Therefore the only hope the people in these congested districts have of airing their grievances is to elect representatives to this Parliament who will act on their behalf.

While Deputies on all sides of the House sympathise with and do their best for these landholders I am afraid that the appeals they make often fall on ears that are heedless and deaf. We have so many Land Acts and so much legislation through which the Minister and his officials in the Land Commission have to plod in order to prepare Estimates, in order to assess the amount of money that will be needed for administration, for the purchase of land and for the 101 other things which require to be done, that I am extremely doubtful that real progress can be made until some system of codification is introduced. If we have to start out now and look for compulsory powers to acquire or resume anybody's land I am very much afraid that this Assembly would refuse to give such powers to any Minister or to any Government. Strange as it may seem, I have a feeling that that is so. When anybody seeks, compulsorily, to acquire or take over another person's property we immediately hear talk of socialism and communism, and I think people throughout the country would become afraid so that any Minister attempting to do such a thing would be very unpopular. However, we have a system here and we must utilise it to the best advantage. That is the work that has to be done.

It is now two years since the Minister took office. We certainly did not expect him, in his first year of office, to do anything other than get a grasp of the administration of his Department. We expected, in his second year of office, that things would get livelier. Now, in his third year of office, we expect that there will be a definite acceleration and that much more work will be done.

Mr. Blowick

Would the Deputy not agree that there was acceleration last year?

Mr. Killilea

We failed to see it.

Mr. Commons

I would agree with the Minister but not so much that there was very much acceleration last year as that what work was done was done in areas where it was very badly needed. While we have problems in the constituency which I represent which have yet been untouched, I am glad to say that I have seen a noticeable change for the better in many areas. Migrants who have been migrated from County Mayo to the Midlands and elsewhere—I do not know the numbers but I know that there have been migrations to counties where land is more plentiful—have been taken from areas which are definitely the worst in the whole of the Twenty-Six Counties. That did not happen heretofore. I am glad it is happening now and I hope it will continue to happen. I hope that the worst cases will be given first consideration even though there may be a crying demand by people who feel they should be considered but who, nevertheless, are not as badly situated as those to whom the attention is being given.

My big worry—I mentioned it yesterday—is the fact that we have made no effort to prevent aliens and foreigners from purchasing land in this country. We would, maybe, have some consideration if an Irishman were to step up and purchase a farm of 300 or 400 acres in the Midlands—such as that which was purchased by Prince Aly Khan during the last week—and use it for dairying, for tillage or for some sort of farming which would give employment on the one hand and which, on the other, would produce something which would be of value to this country. Everybody knows that the moneyed gentlemen who come into this country and purchase land do so for one reason only—to breed and rear racehorses and to carry on racing which, as we know, is the sport of kings—thereby giving very little employment and producing very few goods which are essential to the community. The Minister would be well advised to look up the legislation which protects such people and which gives them the right to go into any county or even into the most congested areas and buy up land and register it as a stud farm—thereby enabling them to snap their fingers at the Land Commission and to prevent the Land Commission from taking over that land which would otherwise be available and of use to the community who have to live in small holdings all around it.

I have a very great fear that the pool of land at our disposal is getting smaller. Everybody must admit that that is so. The land that has been divided has taken so much away from the land which is now available. In 1912, 1913 and 1914 it was possible for the Congested Districts Board to take over estates of, say, 15,000 acres and to make 8,000 or 9,000 of these acres available for the relief of congestion. Such large estates are not now available but we still have quite a goodly number of large farms which are not worked and which are unproductive. I refer to the type of farm which has been let on the 11-months system. The individual who owns land and thinks it more profitable to go out of the country or reside in a town or city and carry on some other occupation, letting his land on the 11-months system, is the type of person who should receive the first attention of the Department. The Minister should deal with those who think so little of their land that they will not work it or take care of it or produce from it by their own labour. Unfortunately, quite a lot of farms are let in that way.

In the western areas, where the poor unfortunate landholders got tired of the promises of relief for their problems, they pulled up their stakes and went to England or America. They cut their connections once and for all with Ireland and with any prospect or hope of coming to reside here again.

In the near future, when the Minister will have power to purchase such small farms at a substantial price, I hope he makes every effort to collect those small farms. They will not add a big acreage of land but will definitely be of great use in dealing with congestion problems where people are hemmed in and hard pinched for a few extra acres. At first he should take over with the greatest speed possible the larger farms let on the 11-months system. That should be done by compulsory powers, without having to resort to the open market at all. It is a well-known fact that the middle-sized farmer is the backbone of the country. Deputies from all Parties have lauded the praises of the 30-, 40-, 60-, 80-, and 100-acre farmers, saying they are definitely the most prosperous and the hardest to break if ever an economic crisis comes. We should set out to create as many of those economic-sized farms as possible and give the people an opportunity of earning a decent living on the land they have, or will then possess.

No matter what else happens the land, or the farmer holding land, will accommodate only one of the family. If the average is four, only one can remain. The other three must be provided for. If the economic circumstances of the farmer are such that he can take care of his children, sons or daughters, as the case may be, when they grow up, there is a lesser burden thrown on the State. It is human nature that everyone tries to provide as best he can for his own family. If people are so well off that they can do so, that will be an easing on the finances of the Government, as there will be less call on the Government to help these people.

We know that it is from the congested areas in the West most emigration takes place. It is from the small holdings along the western seaboard that the ships going to England and America have been filled over the last 100 years. We know the reason—that the parents cannot provide for their children, only one can remain and the rest must go.

The Minister should make sure that compulsory powers are used to the utmost. He should induce his officials to make decisions slightly faster and not have these terrible ten-, 15- and 20-year delays we have been used to for some time past. We dislike being given the same answer to a question as was given in this House 17, 18 or 20 years ago. I can assure the Minister that we do not like it and that we have no intention of taking this answer much longer.

I put down many questions about land at the instigation of the people whom I represent, people whom I regard as my superiors and my bosses. When a person is told that in the case of one farm of land there is no change since the Deputy's last question, or in the second case, perhaps, that the Land Commission have decided not to institute proceedings for the acquisition of the land, we must know the reason. That is what we are sent here for, to know the reason why the Land Commission has refused to institute proceedings to take over portion of a large farm or the whole of a large farm, settling with the owner by providing alternative land elsewhere or by paying compensation if he so wishes. These reasons we have never been given. We asked for them and the Minister said that they were outside his control. I would like him to get them inside his control and to inform the representatives of the people why decisions have been taken or have not been taken by the Land Commission in certain cases and on certain occasions.

In the West and especially in County Mayo, we have waited very patiently for the acquisition by the Land Commission of a farm at Ballyhaunis which caused so much trouble and so much agitation a few years ago. That farm is still in the possession of the owner, who walked in and grabbed it behind the backs of the people about three or four years ago. I understand from the Minister that negotiations are in progress to migrate this grabber to the Midlands and divide the land which he will leave after him amongst the congested holders in the area. I sincerely hope that case will be settled and that a decision will be reached by next November.

I can assure the Minister that the patience of the people in that area is slowly wearing out and the patience of some of us who represent them is also wearing out; and if something is not done I am afraid he is going to have a packet of trouble down on his head which he will not like and none of us would like. I know that the Minister is well-intentioned and has, perhaps, more sincerity in his intentions than anyone in this House. I hope the decision will be given favourably and that the owner of the Cottage farm will be settled somewhere else out of the sight of the people of Mayo, where he has left such a taste and smell by the action he took some years ago.

I wish to say a word regarding the size of the holdings the Land Commission are making. In fairness to the present Minister for Lands, I must say that he has taken care that, wherever possible, decent-sized holdings will be given. He is a great believer in the 30- to 40-statute-acre holdings, where these can be suitably provided in a farm that is taken over. Let that work continue and let that size of holding be created wherever possible. Let holdings of that size be given wherever possible. If a farm that is acquired is not sufficient to give a certain number of holdings of 30 to 40 statute acres of reasonably good land, I would advise the Minister to reduce the number of holdings provided by at least one in order to ensure that what is given would enable the owner to make a comfortable living when he would settle down in it.

The Land Commission have adhered to a fairly standard design in the houses they provide. They would be wise to alter the plans in respect of the houses they build in future. In a progressive age, people would like to see a slightly better class house and a more attractive type of house than they have been used to. I must say that some of the Land Commission houses were very good and very satisfactory but the Land Commission would be doing a very wise thing if they were to give a new look to their housing.

When the Land Commission set out to divide a farm and to make a road through it, they do a very good job. In nine cases out of ten the Land Commission roads have been very good and satisfactory both in regard to foundations and width, but they seem to have a mania for suddenly stopping within, say, 100 yards or 200 yards of another thoroughfare, and thereby create a cul-de-sac. That becomes worse and worse as years go on and is the cause of a headache to those who reside there and to their representatives. If the Land Commission, wherever possible, would continue the road they are making and connect up with another road, the local authority would be able to take over and put the road under contract. That would mean that once a road is made the local authority, by the expenditure of £10 to £30 per annum, would keep the road surfaced and in good condition.

The next matter is supply of water, especially in the Midlands, in Land Commission schemes. It has been brought to my notice that pumps sunk by the Land Commission in some cases have not worked too well. I do not know how true that is. If there is anything in the complaint, I would like the Minister to examine it and to see what could be done to remedy that evil. A scarcity of water is the most horrible thing a farmer can experience. The failure of a pump in the middle of a hot summer, that causes the farmer to drive his cattle five or six miles to water, is something he did not bargain for when he migrated.

It used to be the practice, where a migrant was shifted from a congested area, for the Land Commission to give financial assistance to those remaining in the locality who had bad housing conditions. I understand that that system is not carried on now, that the Land Commission will not advance, by way of free grant or loan, financial assistance except in very few cases. They used to advance ten times the valuation, or something like that. I have been told that that system is not in operation now. I would like the Minister to look into the matter and to give those who remain the same financial assistance, or almost the same financial assistance, as is given to the lucky individual who is migrated.

A practice has arisen in the Land Commission of letting small patches of grazing to people who are left in congested areas. While that may be necessary for a time, I would not like that practice to be continued too long because, when a person gets the grazing of a portion of land, later, when the Land Commission decides to rearrange the area, he is very often loath to part with the land on which he has spent money, on which he has put artificial manures and which he has husbanded. He hates to see it taken from him and given to somebody else. The Land Commission, when they move a migrant or rearrange an area, should get the area cleaned up once and for all. They would then be able to stripe it and resettle it in one operation and there would be no need to let grazing for a period of three or four years.

Unfortunately, the Land Commission was very haphazard in its methods. It went into a congested area of seven villages, perhaps, and took a migrant from each, leaving not enough land to settle those left.

Mr. Blowick

That is exactly what happened.

Mr. Commons

They raised the hopes of the people who were left, to keep them from getting contrary or breaking the law. That was the idea. The Minister has introduced into the Land Commission a system of cleaning up as they go along. Even though those living in one end of the parish may be disappointed because the same progress is not being made there as is made at the other end, in the long run, it is the best plan. It is less expensive, less troublesome and will cause less jealousy amongst those who are to benefit by land resettlement.

I would ask the Minister to adopt some system to debar persons from coming in and purchasing land for the creation of stud farms. If he did that, he would be doing something very useful. He would get more land into the Land Commission pool. He would be building up a reserve of fine fertile fields, which he must get to solve his problem. When the Minister goes into the open market he will have a very good bidder against him when he has the Duke of Westminster or Lord Brockett or the Aga Khan or Prince Aly Khan. Their resources are enormous and, if they want a suitable farm, I am afraid the Minister's official will have to stand back. We are told the Aga Khan weighs himself every year in gold. It is a very good investment to purchase land in this country and to get the benefit of the three F's— free sale, fair rent and fixity of tenure. Even the smallest and most humble Irish farmer has that. That is what I want to point out to the Minister. I understand that he has given it very close consideration and I hope that he gives it even more consideration. It would be better perhaps if those fellows were kept out entirely, but I think if an example were made of a few of them it would be very discouraging for the rest who come in looking for something saying: "We want it and we must have it by all means."

The Minister knows as well as I do that even in the West of Ireland people are running very short of turbary plots. In the old days the only way the congested farmer had to make a few pounds a year was to cut turf and sell it in the town or to local people who had no turf of their own, which resulted in the wholesale extinction of turf banks over 50, 60 or 70 years.

People in small holdings are in a sad plight with regard to turf and turbary plots. In County Mayo in particular where Bord na Móna have left bogs and have decided to cease turf production I can assure the Minister that there are plenty of applicants who are very anxious to get a statute acre of bog to provide themselves with a fire. We know that a system now exists in the West where people buy conacre turf plots which cost very much. They used to be sold by the yard but now they are sold by the foot in certain areas. That can be relieved by the Land Commission extending its activities in the acquisition of turbary for redistribution in plots amongst landowners.

We are not giving the Minister the criticism we feel we could give him but as he has adopted a second system of providing land for the land pool all we can say at this stage is "give the new Bill a chance", but if it has not made satisfactory progress by the next time this Estimate comes up then I can assure the Minister that his passage will not be so easy as it is now.

Captain Giles

While I noticed that Deputy Commons met this Estimate with great glee and joy of heart I approach it very differently. I felt very little joy because while the relief of congestion is foremost in the minds of the Western Deputies, we in County Meath expect a fair do. Under the new Bill, however, and under the 1939 Bill I find that County Meath farmers' sons, landless men and workers are denied even an acre of land and I say to the Minister that he is building a great deal of trouble if he thinks that we are going to take these things lying down. It is all right to say that in the national interests the relief of congestion is necessary, but I want the Minister to realise that very little land is available in the Midlands for the relief of congestion.

Eighty or 90 per cent. of the land which was available for division has been divided over the past 30 years and the amount left for division is mighty small. Even the migrants who came up in the past know that there are not 20 large farms in County Meath for division. Most of them are 100 or 200 acres and if we divide a 100-acre farm in 30-acre plots we can have only three plots. The congests from one parish in the West of Ireland would swamp the whole of Meath, Kildare and Dublin. This problem will never be tackled in the way the Minister thinks.

While I agree that this is a most important Estimate, the Minister has a most thankless task. He comes from the seat of the congestion, from the county where the people are living on top of each other, and he views the question from that side, but I would like the Minister to come to County Meath and view the picture from our side. He has never come to Meath to view the position there.

Mr. Blowick

Faith I did.

Captain Giles

There is no use in making a blind approach to the problem of land settlement. The last Government did so and I hope that the present Minister will not do the same. A properly balanced economy is needed and you cannot make Meath and Dublin into agricultural counties. Gibbstown and Rathcarne are agricultural slums at the present time and the people who are most crying for relief are the migrants themselves.

Mr. Davin

How much does it cost to spoon-feed them?

Captain Giles

You can do great harm when you think you are doing good by land division and I would ask the Minister to think before he goes headlong into it like a bull into a china shop. I want him to realise that in the economy of this country a large amount of fair-sized estates and farms are needed. If you divide all the land in Meath, Westmeath and Kildare as some people would wish I say that the economy of the country would be killed. The people of the West who send their sheep, cattle and stores to our counties would find that they had cut off their nose to spite their face. They would find their market cut off and instead of sending their stores to us they would have to get out their currachs and fish in the sea as their little store trade would be killed.

The Minister in his new Bill has made a fair effort to give justice to the landowners. Under the Fianna Fáil Administration there was a great deal of confiscation of farmers' property. One person I know, who has since died, lost 200 acres and all she got was a £5 note. I am satisfied that she was driven to an early grave because of the treatment she got from the Land Commission. The Minister, however, will give a fair and square deal to those people. I want him to realise that if he tells people the truth and faces them honestly he will get a fair amount of land into his pool for the relief of congestion but he must face the people honestly and cut out compulsion. In our county, his inspectors are like bloodhounds going around. There is hardly a farmer, big or small, hardly a farmer with 30 acres, who has not an inspector sticking his nose in who wants to get some of his land. He must get it, he says, because the local agitation is on. There is no need for that. There are a fair amount of Midland landowners with 200 or 300 acres. If they were approached in a proper way and asked to give with a good heart in the national interest some land for the relief of congestion locally or otherwise, the Minister would get that land with a good heart. There is no use, however, in inspectors carrying on as they have been in recent years, saying that they are taking the land. They should meet the farmers as gentleman to gentleman. The vast majority of people from whom land will be taken in County Meath are decent, straight, honest Irish farmers. I know some of them who, 40 years ago, were the sons of smallholders on ten-acre plots, and now they own 200 or 300 acres. They work their land well and stock it well and give good employment, but notwithstanding that, Land Commission inspectors come and tell them: "We must get some of your land."

If they were absentee landlords or wasters who did not work their land I would have no compunetion about taking land from them, but they are decent men who are working their land well, keeping the export trade going and bringing in the riches which keep the country going. I do not want them sneered at by inspectors and land agitators. I want to see justice done. I would say to the Minister "call in some of your bloodhounds and look after their interests yourself." We are not satisfied in County Meath with some of the inspectors. They are there for the past 15 or 20 years and some of them are nothing more than "besters" and political hacks.

Acting-Chairman (Mr. Sweetman)

The Deputy cannot say that.

Captain Giles

We have asked for some of them to be removed but nothing has been done. They are going around with a sneer now and saying: "Our day has come; we will have our day." I ask the Minister to think twice before allowing that to go on. Migration will take place whether we like it or not, but I should like to give the Minister a tip: give no man something for nothing. There was too much of that in the past, when men, who gave up a rood or half an acre, got fine farms valued for £1,200 or £1,400 in the Midlands with cash given to them and horses, sows, ploughs, cows and so on provided for them, even to the extent of the sack of flour and oatmeal and a fire lighted for them and three or four loads of turf left in the backyard.

I have nothing against men getting these things, but I say it is a waste of public money. If you must bring migrants to the Midlands in the national interest, I say bring up the larger type of migrant and give him a balanced farm in Meath, Westmeath or Kildare where he will be a national asset and do not bring up scores of small men who have to poke their way for years before they are able to find a balanced way of farming. Many of the men who came to the Midlands from the West, the North and the South were good men. Many of them had to feel their way and were more or less a laughing stock for a few years, but they fitted in eventually and made good farmers. There is, however, too much waste of national resources in doing this kind of thing. I should like to know what is the total cost of each migrant brought up to the Midlands from the time he is taken from his own holding and placed on his farm in Meath. I suggest that it is enormous.

There are many landholders in the West with farms of 200 and 400 acres, and indeed 500 acres in Mayo and other counties. Why not take one of these people out and give him 70 acres, with a decent house, in Kildare, Meath, Westmeath or Dublin and then divide his land up amongst the small people in the West? There is no use in telling me that you will relieve congestion by bringing up hordes of small people. Two or three parishes in Mayo or Sligo sent up to Kildare, Meath and Dublin, would dispose of all the land available there. Along the Cavan border, in Meath and in Cavan, there is just as much congestion as there is in Mayo or Sligo and I ask the Minister to tackle that problem in the interests of the Midlands as he is tackling in the interest of the Westerners.

We want justice and fair play and if he took farmers from the congested areas of Cavan and Meath and placed them on good holdings in Meath, Westmeath and Dublin, he would be doing a good national work. But no, we see nothing of that kind. The land of Meath for the people of the West. We are not going to stand for that. Over the past few years we had a great agitation in Meath for land division, an agitation which in many cases was an unjust, a false agitation carried on by men with glib tongues who never walked an acre in their lives, who held meetings of young farmers at the crossroads and said: "We want this farm and we want that farm."

Under the 1939 Act and the Land Bill, farmers' sons and labourers are debarred from getting land in Meath or Kildare, but there are scores of these young men who are being told by these agitators that they must get land. I agree they have done a good deal of work in the matter of bringing before the Land Commission certain farms which should be divided, but they have fooled a vast amount of these people. I do not want to see anybody fooled and I want to know now from the Minister will one farmer's son in County Kildare, if he is a landless man who is eligible for land and willing to take land, get such land and will the cottier get a five-acre plot as in the past? I am told by the Minister and by the Land Commission that not one of these people will get an acre, but we are expected to lie down and watch hordes of people coming in to take over the land of Meath. That is unjust, and I urge the Minister to provide in his Land Bill for justice being done to many of these farmers' sons who have the ways and means to work a holding in the national interest. We will not take this lying down and I say that whether the Minister likes it or not and whether he sits on this side or not.

For years, we saw wasters of all types being planted on the land of Meath and Westmeath—not by the Minister or by the Government, but by Fianna Fáil clubs—and we saw all over Meath and Westmeath a large number of these people being evicted and thrown on the public road. I do not believe in evictions, because I have heard too much about them, but they must take place at present in the national interest because wasters got land and houses and would not live in them. You can see them from Monday to Saturday drinking beer in the publichouses—their lands set and their houses with straw and oats in them, and rats living on them, while they live miles away. I believe that no Land Commission could stand for that. Something must be done and is being done and I stand behind the Minister in taking wasters away from good land.

I do not blame the Minister or the Land Commission so much as I blame the Fianna Fáil Government during their 16 years of office. Why did they pick such men and give them these national resources? It was a public disgrace and we now see the results of it—evictions, drunken wasters, good for nothing, whose land has gone wild. In many cases, gates and piers have disappeared and some of the gutters have been torn off houses and sheds and sold to buy beer.

However, the boys waved the flags and they had to be appeased. Ireland did appease them, but Ireland has now to pay for it. Let the Minister start on a different line, as I know he will. Let all these things be cut out and let every man get his farm on merit and let there be no dictation from this or the other side. Give the Land Commission their job, tell them what to do and set them doing it and let land be given to the best type of people. Put in your provision to enable justice to be done in Meath, Westmeath and Kildare before you flood these counties with a vast number of migrants. I have no objection to migrants. All my neighbours are migrants, good men, hard-working honest men, many of whom vote for me and some of whom vote against me. They realise the position we are in and they say that it is not fair to our people into Meath and give none of our people the land. I say to the Minister: "You are building a hornet's nest around your ears"——

Acting-Chairman

Not around the ears of the Chair.

Captain Giles

The Minister's ears will be warm every day, if he does not get something done. I ask him to come down to Meath and see for himself what is going to take place, so that he may avert it. In the case of a few farms divided in the past few months, not one Meath man got an acre. Three or four migrants were planted on these lands with new houses and stables and given 30 acres. I have no objection to that, but I want to see fair play, and, if, we do not get fair play, I say, although I hate saying it, that the law will be broken. I am sorry to have to say it. The Minister is a genial, good and honest man and I know he does not want agitation and that he will stand for fair play. We will stand for migrants coming into Meath if we get fair play. We want the migrants and the local people to be friends as brother Irishmen should be. They are at present friends and respect each other. If there is no provision for what I suggest in the Land Bill which has gone through the House I think it should be put into it so that justice will be done to many of those people from whom we are taking land. Many of these men work hard and honestly. They may have 300 acres of land but it is fully worked and stocked and they are giving full employment. If you break up the present economy you will be creating agricultural slums and you will have emigration, misery, poverty and unemployment as in the famine days.

I know one man who may have about 400 acres and who has his land fully stocked and works it well. He is one of the best employers in Meath. That man has six sons. He gave up some of his land last year and some the year before, and now he is told that he must give up more land.

Is that man not entitled to give some of his own land to his six sons? He is entitled to fix up his sons on his own land. I say to the Minister that he should proceed cautiously and slowly and ask farmers for the land in the national interest and not send down inspectors to say: "We are taking your land." The Minister for Agriculture and other Ministers stated that it is time to give the farmer a chance. If you give the farmer a chance he will respond. He has as national an outlook as anybody else. If you look for the land in the proper spirit, I am satisfied that any man who has a fair-sized holding will give up some of it in the national interest. If you pay him a good price for it you will make a friend of him and he will be friendly with those who get his land. I have said enough, but I will say more before the year is out, I expect.

Mr. O'Grady

We were informed immediately on the change of Government a few years ago that inspectors would no longer be permitted inside the bounds of any man's farm. Now we are informed by Deputy Giles that the "pip-squeaks", as they were described by one Minister, are gone but that they are being replaced by the bloodhounds. That is the result of the change of Government. There are a few matters to which I should like to direct the Minister's attention. He has told us that 1,250 congests have been relieved by enlargement of their holdings within the last 12 months. I wonder if the Minister's activities are confined exclusively to County Mayo, as Deputy Commons seems to be particularly pleased with the work of the Minister in that particular area.

Mr. Blowick

The Deputy has no cause to grumble.

Mr. O'Grady

I am afraid I have not seen much activity on the Minister's part in my constituency during the last one or two years.

Mr. Blowick

If you have not, you should have.

Mr. O'Grady

I should like to know from the Minister how many of these congests who have been relieved by him belong to my constituency. I am sure other Deputies in other parts of the House will be asking similar questions. So far as I am aware, not a single migrant has been taken out of Clare in the last one or two years. It would seem that the Minister's horizon is bounded by County Mayo.

Mr. Blowick

Is that not too bad?

Acting-Chairman

Deputy O'Grady must be allowed to speak without interruptions.

Mr. O'Grady

I do not mind interruptions.

Acting-Chairman

The Chair does.

Mr. O'Grady

The Minister told us that he had divided 22,000 acres of land last year but, as Deputy Moylan pointed out, during 1940 the much abused Fianna Fáil Administration was responsible for the division of 38,000 acres and during each of the war years, when supplies of materials essential to the division of land were practically unobtainable, no fewer than 20,000 acres were divided in each year. That was at a time when, according to the Minister, the activities of the Land Commission had been suspended. It will take the Minister a very long time before he will reach the average acreage of land divided by Fianna Fáil during their period of office. I know very well that the position with regard to congestion in County Mayo is very good, but County Mayo is not the only county in the west. There are other counties there where there are congested areas practically as bad as any in Mayo. There are only one or two such areas in my constituency, particularly Flagmount, where the valuation of the so-called holdings is only a couple of pounds. A large number of these people some time ago expected to be migrated but, due to an adverse decision in the courts, the migration was held up. That was a big disappointment to these people who were expecting to be relieved. It would appear as if there is very little hope for them now.

Coming to the division of land, I do hope that it is not the policy of the Government to blackball I.R.A. men with proven national service. In the few areas which have been divided in my constituency in the last 12 months I notice that a number of very suitable applicants with proven national service, even though they possessed all the necessary qualifications, such as being resident on a small holding of a few pounds valuation immediately adjoining the estates which were being divided, being married men with large families, industrious and capable of working these holdings, were passed over in favour of men living much further off and who were much less suitable. I do not know whether the Minister would be personally cognisant of these facts but I should like him to inquire into the matter.

Mr. Blowick

Will the Deputy give the particulars?

Mr. O'Grady

I certainly will. I have already taken steps in one instance anyhow, and I will have a little more information for him in the course of the next few days about another. I know it is not possible for the Minister, even if he were so inclined, to interfere in matters of that kind. I should like to remind the House, and particularly Deputy Giles who seems never to have read the Land Act of 1933, that, even if the Minister so wished, there are still certain reservations placed upon him. Under Section 7 of that Act the Minister is precluded from interfering in such matters. Yet we hear statements made even to-day that land was given to people, not by the Minister, not on the recommendation of a Deputy, but by the interference of a Fianna Fáil Cumann. I advise the Deputy to read the Land Act of 1933. Under that Act, even the Minister is precluded from interfering. A Deputy is precluded from interfering, no matter what Party he belongs to. Of course a Deputy can recommend a suitable applicant for consideration and the inspectorate staff of the Land Commission will be obliged to consider such an application. I presume that that still holds. But, so far as personal interference by the Minister is concerned, I think it would be impossible for him to interfere, even if he were so energetic and spiteful, along the lines so frequently alleged during the last 18 years. I think it would be about time an end was put to that sort of propaganda which everybody knows to be untrue.

In my opinion the housing provided for migrants and others who get divisions of land is entirely inadequate. In some cases the houses are unsuitable. If I am not mistaken I drew attention to this matter last year or the year before when this Estimate was being debated. In bog areas houses are being built with little fireplaces which are unsuitable for the burning of turf. That is particularly so in rooms in some of these small houses which are provided by the Land Commission. The Minister would do well to look into the plans and to have some alteration made so that the people who have turf at their doors would be able to use the fuel which nature has provided for them instead of expecting them to use imported coal. I think that the number of out-offices provided, and the types of out-offices provided, are entirely unsuitable. They are inadequate to enable a migrant or other allottee to farm his land in a proper manner. For instance, a stable is supposed to be provided but no provision is made for even a farm cart because any of the doors in the out-office would not permit of a farm cart being pushed in. It would not cost the Land Commission a great deal extra to make the door a few feet wider and thus enable the farmer to put in his cart and protect it from the weather.

I want to refer to the question of fencing. We see all over the country a number of sod-fences put up by the Land Commission—particularly where building materials are scarce. Apart altogether from the waste of such land it is only a matter of time until the cattle on either side of such a fence level it to the ground. With a little more consideration and thought the Land Commission could, when building these fences, plant thornquicks at the butt of the fences and, and even a single strand of wire would be suitable until the thornquicks would grow up. That could be done without any great cost to the Land Commission.

Apart from the division of land, another very important matter to which I should like to draw the attention of the Minister is the provision of turbary. In Clare, more bogs are available for division than there are lands to be divided. There is a big demand, which is not confined to any particular area but which is general throughout the whole county, for the division of these bogs. I hope that during the coming year the Minister will give some attention to the claims of these people—many of them are without turbary on their own lands—and, where possible, provide them with suitable turf banks. We all know how difficult the position is in an area where there is no other source of fuel, such as timber and so forth, and how essential it is to provide the farmers and smallholders with a suitable bank of turf. When Deputy Giles complains about migrants being brought from the West to the Midlands I might retort by asking him to keep some of his own people from buying up the large ranches in the Carran district in County Clare. They have recently purchased some holdings to the extent of 400 or 500 acres. He might be interested to know that some of his colleagues are protesting against that state of affairs. I hope the Minister will bear that in mind when he is preparing his plans for the future.

Mr. Beirne

I come from a county in which, perhaps, there has been more Land Commission activity over the past 20 years than in any other of the Twenty-Six counties. Nevertheless, there still remains a lot to be done. We have a dual problem there —the problem of congestion and the problem of the land. We have land there to be divided and we have congestion. Therefore, nine-tenths of my work as a public representative is Land Commission work. Perhaps it does not sound very well, coming from me, to congratulate the Minister or his Department on the many things which were done, to my own knowledge, in my county within the past couple of years but, without fear of contradiction, I say that without a shadow of a doubt progress has been made. I can see evidence of that progress day by day and week by week because my Land Commission work is decreasing. During my first couple of years as a representative in this House my Land Commission work was colossal. It is, however, diminishing year by year and that, I think, is adequate proof that the activities of the Land Commission have been intensified within the past couple of years.

Mr. Killilea

Deputy McQuillan has taken it over.

Mr. Beirne

I think he has also taken over Galway, and I wish him the height of good luck. Figures and facts speak for themselves. When the Minister tells us—and I have no reason to doubt it as the matter has been exemplified in my constituency—that 1,250 holdings have been brought up to an economic level during the past year I would say that that is an achievement of which any Minister or any Department should be proud. While it may not seem well for me to be praising the Minister—as a member of the Party to which I belong—I assert that I would say that to any Minister, no matter what Party he might belong to and I congratulate him on the achievement. He has, also, vested 16,200 holdings. That is a record, as far as I know. I do not think that ever in the history of this country such a large number of tenants have been vested in their land in a similar period of time. I congratulate the Minister and also his Department and staff on the work they have done. The Minister said that during 1949-50 he distributed 28,554 acres of land. That is not a bad record. When the Minister took office he had, first of all, to find his feet as a Minister. He found the Department in chaos. Everything was topsy-turvy there during the years of the emergency and work was at a standstill. It took him quite a long time to get into his stride but I must say that since then he has done remarkable things in such a short space of time.

After all these bouquets, there are a few matters which I wish to bring to the attention of the Minister. The first concerns unestablished outdoor officers in the employment of the Land Commission. I was surprised to learn that the number of such officers exceeds 50. Some of these men are, perhaps, over 50 years of age and I understand that once they reach that age they cannot be established—and when they reach 65 they are thrown on the scrap-heap without any provision being made for their future by way of pension. I was surprised that a large body such as the Land Commission should have in its employment 48 or 50 men on its outdoor staff who are yet unestablished. I understand that that state of affairs has existed over the years. I protest strongly to the Minister in respect of such a state of affairs. I think it is a disgrace and a shame. I must say that I was very irritated when I heard about it. Why it is that men up to 50 years of age who have, perhaps, given 30 of the best years of their life in the service of the Land Commission, cannot, when they reach 50 years of age, become established? When they reach 65 years they have, automatically, to retire and they are then in the position that they have no pension and that no provision whatsoever has been made in respect of their old age. I appeal to the Minister in all decency and reason and common-sense to make provision for these men. He should make representations—I presume to the Department of Finance—to see that these men are established without delay. This might be more appropriate on the Land Bill, but the Minister might be courteous enough to give me a little information. I know four or five large farms purchased about a year ago by the Land Commission and the price fixed. Some of the people had to have annuities redeemed, which brought the price down considerably. In two or three cases, possession has not yet been taken. In one case, the price was fixed last July. The people who owned the farms formerly are anxious to know if they will still have to redeem the annuities.

Mr. Blowick

They will, until the Bill becomes law.

Mr. Beirne

The redemption money will have to be paid?

Mr. Blowick

Yes.

Mr. Beirne

The Act is by no means retrospective?

Mr. Blowick

No.

Mr. Moylan

The Deputy should not make too many promises about that.

Mr. Beirne

I have made no promises; I am very non-committal in these cases. I know where I stand. This means that people whose land was purchased and price fixed last July, and from whom the Land Commission has not yet taken possession, are in the unfortunate position that they have to redeem the annuities, though the Land Commission are the owners, in the strict sense of the word.

Mr. Blowick

That is right, but they benefit in other ways. They can appeal in respect of price, if not satisfied, within six months. There is no guarantee that the price will be increased, since that is a matter for the Appeal Tribunal.

Mr. Moran

The Minister can now give out the holdings. He has power to do it.

Mr. Moylan

All the Clann na Talmhan secretaries are going to get farms.

Mr. Beirne

I would like to register a protest against that point, where land has not been taken over. There is bound to be a borderline position. These people are still in actual possession of the land. Will they be asked to take half price for that land? I doubt if that is honest. Someone will have to make retribution some time, whoever makes it. It is unjust and unfair. It is absolute and undiluted robbery.

Mr. Blowick

It is the law.

Mr. Moylan

Made by the Minister. That is a shocking character to give the Minister.

Mr. Beirne

I know a case where two brothers inherited a farm of land from their father. He made a will dividing it equally, giving the same quality and size to each brother. One of them is getting the full market value, £3,000, while his brother on the other side of the fence is getting £3,000 minus the redemption of the annuities. That is most ridiculous. If either of these men put their farms up for public auction in the open market, they would get a better price.

Mr. Blowick

Is not that what I have set right in the new Bill?

Mr. Beirne

The Minister has not said so here and now.

Mr. Blowick

I have. Until the Bill becomes law, the old law must obtain. That is all.

Mr. Beirne

But is there any such thing as retrospective legislation in a case like that?

Mr. Blowick

The Bill does not provide for it. I will answer for my own sins, but not for the sins of Fianna Fáil.

Mr. Moran

Obviously, the two brothers support different political Parties.

Mr. Beirne

Deputy Giles seemed perturbed about the activities of the Land Commission in his area. It is strange that none of the representatives in his area seem to be very active with questions in connection with Land Commission activities. I think there cannot be a very acute congestion problem there. There are hundreds of thousands of acres in the area which should be acquired for migration, to relieve congestion elsewhere.

The Minister and his Department have given guarantees on various occasions that there would be no such thing as victimisation of local congests until the congestion question is settled in the area where land is divided. If congestion in my county were fully solved and everyone had been brought up to the economic level, I would have no objection to a man from Mayo coming in but I would object to my grandfather from Mayo being brought in now to my county, where the congestion problem is so acute.

Mr. Moylan

Local patriotism.

Mr. Beirne

Just what the Deputy practised himself. Regarding fences, houses and roads, more attention should be paid to them. In the past, I had the sad experience of seeing some land division on the plains of Boyle. Houses were erected there at that time, 16 years ago, and they are all tumbling down now. The houses on the Warren estate are so bad that in some of them you would need to wear your overcoat, while the tiles are rattling on the roof. There should be more supervision in the future. At the time these lands were divided on the plains of Boyle, some of the tenants who were migrated—they seem sorry they cannot get back—were promised an adequate water supply for domestic use and for live stock. For the last 15 years they have no supply of water, and I do not think that, up to the present, anything has been done to relieve the situation. It was intolerable last year. I made an appeal on various occasions, to the past and to the present Governments, to relieve that want. I have seen people driving cattle three or four miles to water. The position was very serious last year, as the Department must know. I would ask that the promises and guarantees to provide water be fulfilled. The fences on many farms are crumbling away. Like other speakers, I suggest that the Department should embark on some programme of planting whitethorn, or something like that.

Regarding letting for grazing of lands in the hands of the Land Commission, I asked a supplementary question some time ago and suggested that any letting for grazing or tillage should be advertised by a poster on the local church gate or in the public Press. Where the letting is of a big nature, 400 or 500 acres being let by conacre or for grazing, it would pay to advertise in the Press, and where the letting is small it could be done by the church gate poster. Then people would be notified of what is happening. Some things have not gone to my satisfaction, so far as the letting of some farms is concerned, and the most deserving people have not got them. There are some congests with a few head of cattle who need accommodation very badly. In that connection, I would like to bring to the notice of the Minister and the Department that in many cases the rents charged for grazing on these farms are exorbitant. I have seen as much as £4 per head paid for yearling beasts for six months, and as much as £6 per head for two-year-old beasts for six months. I understand that the Land Commission is not looking for a profit on these transactions. It is too big a body and these are only infinitesimal matters.

Mr. Blowick

Is it not letting by auction?

Mr. Beirne

No. £4 for a yearling beast and £6 for a two-year-old beast is exorbitant. There should be a fixed nominal charge. In my opinion, £2 for a yearling and £4 for a two-year-old beast would be reasonable in the case of a poor congest—perhaps a little severe.

I do not know what the policy of the Department with regard to accommodation plots for cottiers will be in future but I have been informed recently that in the division of the Kingston estate, Kilronan, in the extreme north of County Roscommon, cottiers have got accommodation plots. I would say to the Minister that in this matter he should be extremely careful. There are cottiers who are deserving of allotments and who would give satisfaction and work them, but there are cottiers of another class who will never work them successfully. The Land Commission are having difficulty with some of these cottiers in parts of County Roscommon and I know of cases where they have been dispossessed or where action is pending.

While I approve in general of giving plots and agree that a good man in a labourer's cottage should be entitled to five or six acres if he is adjacent to the farm or living on the farm that is divided, in the case of landless men another bogey arises. I know the Land Commission does not regard them favourably as applicants for land. There are exceptions to every rule. In my short experience as a public representative I have seen the Land Commission faced with considerable trouble from landless men who got land perhaps nine or ten years ago, on division. They were most unsatisfactory and proper care was not taken in the selection of them. There is another kind of landless men, in whom I am interested. Take the case of a good thrifty honest working farmer bringing up four or five sons. One of these sons may start dealing in cattle and may make some money. I know of a few young men who have from £600 to £800 in their possession—not sufficient to buy an economic holding and stock it but sufficient to stock and work a holding. Such cases should be investigated and men of that calibre should be selected as being suitable for land. There again, the Minister would have to institute very careful inquiries because there could be fakes. It is too bad that such men as I have mentioned do not qualify for land. I know them to be even more industrious and better men than some of the congests that have been migrated. Landless men should not be placed too far down on the list for division of land.

With regard to Land Commission roads, up to a point, I can praise the Land Commission as far as the construction and making of roads is concerned. They have made very good roads, well surfaced, but, like Deputy Commons, I think they could have continued the roads further. In some cases they make a road to within 100 yards or 50 yards of a main thoroughfare and stop there, thus creating a cul-de-sac. At present, there is no legislation—let us hope it will come—by which culs-de-sac may be maintained by county councils, with the result that no matter what representations are made to the county council or county manager, a cul-de-sac is ruled out. These roads should be continued to the main thoroughfare and the county council, in time, would maintain them at public expense. Deterioration has occurred in many of these roads. I am glad to see that a little more money is being voted for rural improvement schemes but it is very difficult to get the people living on these roads to agree to a rural improvement scheme. I would urge on the Minister the necessity for making these roads right through.

In regard to turbary, I would like the Minister to step up progress in the division of land and allocation of turbary. In my immediate vicinity there are some very large tracts of bog and they are no man's land. No one actually knows what his rights are, if he has rights, on these bogs. That is a very unsatisfactory position. There is in that locality sufficient bog to supply the needs of all the people in the district but some people have acres and acres while others have none at all. That position has developed down the ages, by people laying claim to tracts of bog, by establishing squatter's title by cutting turf on them for a number of years. People whose valuation is very high and who, perhaps, have a couple of houses on their land, a herd's house and their own house, are not able to provide fuel for themselves or their herd. It is a case of famine in the midst of plenty. The turf is there but it is not equitably distributed. I would ask the Land Commission to step up on that matter at once and to divide those bogs. That situation is not peculiar to my county but is prevalent in other counties. I think it is more acute in my county, especially that part of it that is in my immediate vicinity.

I want again to refer to the unestablished officer. I am sorry to have to repeat what I have already said but I feel very annoyed that a big body such as the Land Commission should be working on the cheap. A State employee is entitled to some recognition when he has given 40 or 50 years of the best of his life to the State. These men, as I said before, are in the unhappy position that when they come to 65, if they are unestablished, they cannot get a pension. They cannot be established after the age of 50 years, I understand.

Mr. Blowick

That is right. May I inform the Deputy that they enjoy the very same privileges as all other civil servants?

Mr. Beirne

I understand that, up to a point, but, at the age of 65, they enjoy none of the privileges and perhaps the county home or the workhouse will be the finish. Established civil servants are granted a pension. It is cheap, mean and uncharitable, that these men should be asked to give 40 or 50 years of their lives to the State service without being protected in their old age. They are thrown on the scrap-heap. I would ask the Minister to make representations to the Department of Finance to see that this injustice is repaired. I move to report progress.

Progress reported, the Committee to sit again.