Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 12 Jun 1956

Vol. 158 No. 1

Committee on Finance. - Vote 47—Lands (Resumed).

Mr. Corry

Since I spoke on this matter previously, I have had the advantage of getting some replies to questions I put down to the Minister. I cannot see any justification for the lapse of a period of almost two years after the passing of a special measure through this House enabling a Minister to take over State lands. Yet we are informed by the Minister for Lands that negotiations are still in progress. This shows a great lack of speed in dealing with very necessary work. These 450 acres of arable land lying idle in Kilworth and only let for grazing at present should be taken over by the Land Commission and divided up.

The next point I want to deal with is the position in regard to the two estates of P. and J. Ryan in Ballycotton. It is well over three years since I raised this matter here. Since then the Land Commission apparently have done nothing, although the owners of these lands are left with the impression that the lands will be taken over from them any day, with the result that a large amount of employment that previously had been given on those lands, in the production of early potatoes, has ceased. In reply to a question put down by me a fortnight ago in this connection, I was told by the Minister that there was a question of title involved. These people have been paying annuities to the Land Commission since they purchased the lands some 35 years ago.

It was quite in order for the Land Commission to take the annuities and evidently they knew to whom they should send the bill. There should be no difficulty about the question of title and even if the question of title does arise, I suggest that once the Land Commission decide to take over an estate, they should do what the local authority does when faced with a similar problem, namely, take over the property, proceed to divide it and let whoever proves his right to the money afterwards, come and get it. There should be no hold-up of this kind in relation to the division of estates.

I am glad discussion on this question did not conclude here the last day because it gives me an opportunity of dealing with certain statements made by the Minister in some of his most disorderly interruptions when I was speaking. I was referring to the Rostellan estate, and I wish to quote now from column 1608, Volume 157 of the Official Debates of the 6th June, 1956:—

"Mr. Blowick: Do they pay rates?

Mr. Corry: They certainly do.

Mr. Blowick: It is a wonder the Deputy did not get the Cork County Council to make an offer to us.

Mr. Corry:... The Minister was a member of a local authority and he knows that a local authority cannot just go in and take over a road.

Mr. Blowick: Of course they can. We would have given £700 if the Cork County Council would put up so much."

Now, Sir, the moment I read that, having got the report yesterday morning, I showed it to the county manager and I told him we had got hold of £700 from the Minister for Lands for the Rostellan road; he authorised me to accept that sum as officially given here in the Official Report and to return my most gracious thanks to the Minister on behalf of the tenants of Rostellan for that very generous gift.

Mr. Blowick

Where was that offer made?

Mr. Moylan

The Minister made it.

Mr. Blowick

Read it out.

Mr. Corry

The Minister will find it in column 1608 of the Official Report of 6th June, 1956.

Mr. Blowick

That is a misquotation. I must get that corrected. I never said that.

Mr. Corry

I have here a regular little volume in connection with this matter and I take it that the Minister, having made that public announcement here the last day, will not now come along at this stage and change his mind. This matter has been dragging on for a long time. The first letter I have here from the Land Commission is dated 12th June, 1950, and they ask:—

"Is the council prepared to consider taking over the road and providing for its future maintenance?"

That was in June, 1950. In December, 1950, they wrote again in similar terms and they were then informed that it was the policy of the Cork County Council that no road built by private enterprise could be taken over, unless it was brought up to county council standards, and that no differentiation could be made as between the Land Commission and private enterprise in that respect. On 26th June, 1952, the Land Commission were informed that it would cost £289 to put this road into proper condition and they wrote back refusing to give the £289.

Mr. Blowick

Who was Minister then?

Mr. Corry

I am not concerned. Ministers come and go.

Mr. Deering

And the Deputy goes on for ever.

Mr. Blowick

It is a good job Ministers come and go.

Mr. Corry

In January, 1954, the Land Commission were informed that it would cost £400 to put this road into repair. In January, 1954, we got the following letter from the Irish Land Commission:—

"With reference to your letter ...regarding the road constructed by the Land Commission through the above estate, which is being used by the general public as a through road from Farsid to Whitewell and to the subsequent interview between their inspector, Mr. O'Maille, and the deputy county engineer from which it appeared that the county council would undertake the necessary repairs provided the Land Commission contributed £289 to the estimated cost, I am desired by the Land Commission to state that they will be prepared to contribute £189 (including gravel to the value of £16 which will be made available locally) towards the cost of repair provided the county council accept full responsibility for the future maintenance of the road."

That was replied to, again pointing out that it was the policy of the county council that the road should be put into proper repair before being taken over by them. We got a nice little missive then in March, 1954:—

"With reference to your letter ... regarding the road through the above estate which is being used by the general public as a through road from Farsid to Whitewell, I am desired by the Land Commission to state that they do not propose to take any further action in the matter."

If all the people who were occupied in inspecting title and everything else had brought a shovel of stones with them, they would have had the damn thing done. The next letter was 20th June, 1955:—

"... I am desired by the Land Commission to state that as indicated in their letter of 5th January, 1954, they will be prepared to contribute £189 (including gravel to the value of £16 which will be made available locally) towards the cost of repair provided the county council accept full responsibility for the future maintenance of the road."

In September, 1955, we had a further letter:—

"With reference to your letter of 7th instant regarding the road at Rostellan on the above estate, I am desired by the Land Commission to refer you to their letter of the 20th June, 1955, Reference No. A. & R. 20915/55, and to state that they are not prepared to increase the amount of the contribution set out therein. Unless that offer is accepted within one month the Land Commission do not propose to take any further action in the matter."

That was 1955. This is 1956. The condition of the road has changed. It will now cost over £400 to repair the road and it will cost over £350 to mend the breaches which have now appeared in the quay wall, the quay over which this road runs into the estate. Luckily enough, the quay wall happens to be at the Minister's side of the road, namely, the side that the Minister has taken over for forestry. The land there is being used by the Forestry Branch at the moment.

I feel fairly proud at times. Would one ever believe that a single speech of mine could shake another £100 out of the Minister? When I spoke on this matter the last day the offer was £189. This morning, when I made a little call to the county council offices before coming up here, this missive dated 16th May, 1956, had arrived:—

"I am desired by the Land Commission to refer to the question of the repair of the road at Rostellan on the above estate and to state that, on further consideration, they have decided to increase their offer of a contribution in the matter to £300."

I tell you that that was a good speech!

Mr. T. Lynch

Surely the Deputy is not finding fault with that offer.

Mr. Corry

The letter concludes:—

"This represents their final offer and is made subject to the acceptance by your council of full responsibility for further maintenance."

That letter was sent out on 16th May offering £300 and, on 6th June, the Minister told us he would give us £700.

Mr. Blowick

Take care would the Deputy wind up by not getting anything for it.

Mr. Corry

The Minister is a big man and he likes to speak in big sums, but, lo and behold, when it comes down to bedrock, the sum, like the voice, disappears, and we only get half the value. I am holding the Minister to the public statement he made here in relation to that road. The Minister stated it here publicly and I have examined the file. Every letter written to us by the Land Commission is there. We were promised £700 if the county council put up so much.

Mr. Blowick

I never said that. The Deputy knows quite well that an error can occur in the Dáil Debates, as well as in any other place.

Mr. Corry

I am holding the Minister to the statement made by him at column 1608.

Mr. Blowick

I have it.

Mr. Corry

If the Minister has it, let him read it and see what it says.

Mr. Blowick

On a point of order, Sir, for the sake of accuracy, I want to draw your attention to the statement at column 1608 of the Dáil Debates for Wednesday, 6th June and say that that is not what I said. There is an error there; £700 should not appear there. The whole cost of this road would not be £700; it is obviously an error.

Mr. Moylan

I understood the Minister to say what Deputy Corry says he said.

Mr. Blowick

That is not what I said.

Mr. Corry

I can assure the Minister that I carefully listened to every word of his disorderly interruptions.

Mr. Blowick

One of the best proofs that I did not say it is that Deputy Corry did not accept it at the time.

Mr. Corry

I anxiously watched the Official Report for it. I went to the trouble of going to the county council and getting every letter that was written by the Land Commission since this matter was first raised in 1950.

Mr. Blowick

Why did not the Deputy accept it that night?

Mr. Corry

The Minister was making disorderly interruptions across the House at the time. I wanted the authority of the manager before I accepted it. I went up to the manager yesterday and he told me to accept it and to thank the Minister for it. I can assure the Minister that he has my grateful thanks for that £700. I am speaking not alone on my own behalf and on behalf of the members of the county council, but also on behalf of the unfortunate tenants of that estate. Now we will be able to make a decent road into it with the Minister's £700 and the county council will take it over.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister has now pointed out that he made no such statement. I take it the Deputy will accept the Minister's statement?

Mr. Corry

The Deputy accepts what is here in the Official Report.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

It is usual to accept the Minister's word when he says he made no such statement.

Mr. Corry

What can I do when other Deputies say he did make the statement and when the statement is here in the Official Report?

Mr. Blowick

Do I take it that the Deputy is refusing the official offer of £300 from the Land Commission?

Mr. Corry

The Minister offered £700 here, and that offer has been conveyed by me to the county council. The county manager has been given a copy of the Official Report, and I can assure the Minister that his offer will be accepted by the full county council next Monday. All we will be looking for then is the cheque.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister has evidently been misrepresented; he says he made no such statement.

Mr. Corry

I am not as deaf as all that. I heard what the Minister said.

Mr. Blowick

Why did not the Deputy accept it then? Is it not quite clear that the Deputy did not hear it at all?

Mr. Corry

The Minister was jumping up and down interrupting me every minute. I was trying to make my speech in peace. The Minister's statement offering us £700 is there. If the cheque is down on Monday, it will be all the better and we will be all the happier about it. I do not wish to go further into the matter. I do not know whether, with all the disorderly interruptions he makes, the Minister goes to the trouble of reading what he says. According to him now, he does not even think of what he says before he shouts it out. It is a very bad policy. I am sure that the Minister in his goodness of heart—he is a nice man, if you talk nicely to him—will give us that £700 and that he is not going to deny the Official Report.

Mr. Blowick

Keep hoping.

Mr. Corry

I will pass from that to a few other matters. There is an estate belonging to a man named Collins at Inchiquin, Youghal, which we have been waiting to have divided for some time. I can say that Mr. Collins, knowing the conditions in the area, has no objection whatever to handing over that land to the Land Commission for division. I take it, therefore, that the matter will receive the attention of the Land Commission and that it will be got through with all possible haste. As I said here the last day, the particular class of tenant and farmer with whom we are dealing right along that coastline from Ballymacoda to Ballycotton is composed entirely of smallholders.

I had a list of the valuations of some 11 applicants for the Collins estate. The highest was £12 10s., and it varies from that down to the cottier with an acre. In that area, the cottier with an acre is a man who depends for his livelihood on taking conacre, perhaps in some cases seven or eight miles away, and growing crops on that conacre in order to make a livelihood for himself and his family. If this farm goes, these people are going to be condemned to remain, for this generation, at any rate, on those small uneconomic holdings; and I urge the Minister to get to work there and take over that land as quickly as possible.

I have a peculiar difficulty, both in regard to that estate and also to the estate of P.J. Ryan, Ballycotton. Unfortunately, the eel worm was found in beet there some two years ago. The land is constantly being tilled and those people have no other way out since they have been prevented from growing beet on that land.

The 87 acres I speak of have not been tilled for a considerable time and would be a good addition to the economy of these people. We have the same position in regard to the P.J. Ryan estate in Ballycotton. I cannot understand a delay of three or four years between the time at which the Land Commission notified the people that they are entering on the land for inspection and the taking over of the land. In this case there is no objection offered by the tenant. Both in the Collins estate and the P.J. Ryan estate no objection has been offered by the tenant. In the Ballycotton area you have a very large percentage of people with a small acreage of land and I would again urge the Minister that he speed up the taking over and the division of those holdings.

I do not wish to delay the House unduly. I am glad that I did not finish on the last day since I have had an opportunity of getting from the Minister the full amount of the costs of the repair and putting into proper condition of the holding I have referred to. Where the Land Commission take over an estate and put a road through that estate, that road should be, at least, put into such condition that the public authority should be in a position to take it over without the expenditure of any large sum of money.

This business of building two ditches, putting a few sods between them and calling that a road should stop. That kind of thing has gone on for a very considerable period. That was the condition in which the road I have mentioned was left. That is all that was ever done to those lands. Now that we have cleared the matter up, and that we have a promise of £700 from the Minister, all I can do, on behalf of my constituents, is to offer him our very grateful thanks.

Mr. T. Lynch

The Land Commission will never be able to satisfy the people or Deputies and indeed, the best thing we can do, is to make suggestions, and not be too hard on the officers of the Land Commission or on the Minister himself. I have taken the usual interest in land division and I have been noticing the way in which the Land Commission have gone about the business for some years. If there is an agitation in any particular area, and there is a big place which the Land Commission decides to take over, they come down and make preparations to do so. It serves some people right, because of the way they got their places, to have them taken off them. But in nearly every case the Land Commission does not uphold the people who could do with a few pounds and who did not get their land in any doubtful manner. The Land Commission is the worst customer in the world for land. They want to take over land for nothing and their activities often give rise to the cry of confiscation. The Land Commission should be prepared to give at least nearly as much as anybody else for land.

I have a case in my constituency of a family of well-known farmers. Most of the members of one branch of this family were in bad health and died off very quickly. The Land Commission came along to take over the place and there was the usual trouble regarding the title because all the other members of the family had a claim on the place. The whole thing took about 12 years. Eventually the title trouble was cleared up after about eight years and now another four years have gone by and the people concerned have not got 6d. for this land. Eventually, when it is settled up, they will be paid in land bonds. The majority of people who have their land taken from them are not people who can afford to take land bonds. I believe that all these land bonds are worth now is £80 per £100 stock. I think that that is a three card trick which the Land Commission has been working on the people for years.

Again, the Land Commission comes along, takes over land and lets it in conacre. We cry out for tillage and more tillage to the bitter end. The Land Commission sets the land this year, and next year, and the year after that and eventually we have a place which is useful only for growing "praiseach" and thistles. I do not know how the Land Commission escapes being prosecuted under the Noxious Weeds Act in the case of a number of places they have been holding for years.

There is also the question of the qualifications of people who get lands from the Land Commission. We are led to believe that the best thing we can do is to relieve congestion. The Land Commission puts into a privileged position people who hold a small piece of land, but what about the landless men? The landless men are no good, according to the dictum of the Land Commission. I do not think that this is right. I know plenty of landless men who, despite the fact that they did not possess a sod of their own, got a few pounds together out of their labours and took conacre year after year. These men have proved beyond all doubt that they could make a living from farming even if they do not own an acre. On the other hand, if we have a man with some miserable place of nine or ten acres, who does not do a thing with it, such a man will get land from the Land Commission. I consider that the men who have proved themselves to be good farmers should be considered. So much for the question of the landless man.

There is also such a person as a landless woman. I have known cases, and there must be cases all over the country, where men died, leaving widows and families. I have two cases in mind in my own constituency in each of which a brave struggle was made by the widow. There was no place to work and only a cottage on the side of the road to go into but that decent woman, through her sweat and hard labour, worked hard to build up her family. Such a woman would not be considered for land by the Land Commission or would not qualify under their regulations. I think this is something we should take cognisance of. These are worthwhile people and whether they have land or not they are able to make a livelihood. The main qualification should be: can a person, if he gets land, get a livelihood from it? The people who can do so are the people best qualified to get the land.

I have been told that the descendants of people who were evicted from farms would receive more consideration than anybody else in the matter of getting land. I suppose that is so and that should be so, because we are a great people for righting a wrong, and a great wrong was done to many of our people when they were evicted. We should also watch that the people who sprang from the evictors would not be qualified to get land. It should be seen to that they should never qualify to get land from this State. I have some knowledge of evictors and landlords' men getting land only recently from the Land Commission.

In Portlaw, in my constituency, lands have been taken over and lands are due to be taken over for division. People in the district are very disturbed. They are under the impression that migrants will be brought in. This is an area in which there are enough people looking for a piece of land and wanting land and qualified to receive land under the policy of the Land Commission for the relief of congestion. There are sufficient people with smallholdings there. I would again direct the Minister's attention to the case for the people in the Portlaw area.

I would say to the Minister that when the Land Commission take over land, if the land is being set for grazing year after year, the Land Commission should see to it that the fences are maintained. I have seen a lot of these places run down to a condition in which they would not be worth 2d. When the Land Commission eventually makes up its mind to divide the land, it will cost a good deal of money to put the fences into proper repair, and whatever it will cost would be put on the price, thus making it dearer on the people going into it

I would particularly ask the Minister to have a review made from county to county of all the holdings the Land Commission have and to see that immediate steps are taken to divide any holdings they have held over a period of four years and have let for grazing or in conacre

Seosamh Ó Cinnéide

Ba mhaith liom cúpla pointe do luadh ar an Meastacháin seo. I have consistently advocated in this House that a period of 20 years should elapse before holdings are vested. The Minister has indicated on this Estimate that a lot of vesting has been done in the eastern part of the country. I would respectfully suggest that he should concentrate his forces on the west and northwest, or wherever vesting has not been done, and, in that way, prevent people who got land in the Midlands within the last five or six years putting up these farms for sale. Cottiers have had to wait a very long time before they got the right to purchase the cottages and before the cottages were vested in them and, in connection with recent schemes, there is no provision to vest. Therefore, in carrying out the most important function of the Land Commission, the division of the land of the country, they should hesitate to vest until they see that the new owner in fee simple is a good farmer, that he carries out farming according to the best rules of husbandry and that he is resident on the farm. A lot of evils that have cropped up in Meath and Westmeath in the past 30 years could have been avoided, if that had been done. It is a bit late to do it now.

Another matter to which I wish to refer is land division in the Midlands. I do not see that it is justifiable, where a small estate is being divided, that a father and son should get holdings on that estate, particularly where the father is a very old man, that the father should get an addition to his holding and the son, who acquired four or five acres within the past three years, should get another addition. It has given rise this year to all kinds of criticism of the Land Commission and undue political interference, on the Minister's side of the House, by a certain political Party. Without mentioning names, anyone examining the matter will agree that, if you are dividing 150 statute acres and if those 150 statute acres are surrounded by uneconomic holders and if you pick out an elderly man and give him an addition to his holding and then make his son, who has acquired three or four acres in the vicinity, an economic holder, there is something very wrong. The Land Commission should look into my statement and see that the same thing does not occur again because it reflects on their administration in County Westmeath.

Mr. Blowick

On what estate did that happen?

Mr. Kennedy

It happened on the Adamson estate in the Boher district of County Westmeath within the past two months.

Dealing with small estates, I want to say, first, that since I became a member of Dáil Éireann, I have never opposed migration, and, as a public representative, I have made migrants very welcome to Westmeath or wherever they were brought in the Midlands, but we have reached a stage now in the Midlands when the plight of our own uneconomic holders must be taken into account when small estates are being divided.

According to the Statistical Abstract of 1938, in the county of Longford there were 3,195 smallholders whose valuation ranged above £4 and did not exceed £15. Any public man who visited North Longford during his political career knows the poor land there, the smallholdings and the desperate struggle for existence of the people. Let us apply what I have stated to an estate about to be divided in my own county on the borders of County Longford which is, I would say, not more than 150 statute acres. I refer to the MacCartan estate which is now in the hands of the Land Commission. You have smallholders rearing families of seven or eight children and trying to eke out an existence within a mile of that estate. Surely, that is not an estate to which to bring migrants. The plight of these smallholders should be considered. They are human beings and are Irishmen and women just the same as those who come from the north, south, east or west. They should get consideration and I am making the case for them here. I want to assure the Minister that we are going to fight this case and every case like it.

In the division of the estate in Kiltoom, good men got farms and they are welcome there. They proved good farmers but only two uneconomic holders got any benefit in my own district. There should be a thorough scrutiny of these migrants. As I say, the majority of them deserve land. The majority of them are welcome but when you get a migrant who got land within the past two years entering the auction mart for a substantial farm of land and paying £5,300 for that farm you begin to question whether there has been a thorough examination of his right to get land when an estate is being divided. Telling us that it is for his brother in America he bought it, is a cock and bull story. The open market was there for him and his brother all the time. It is open to everyone like him to go in as many good western people have gone into the County Westmeath and set a headline for us and bought farms. Certainly, they were not people who should be considered for migration.

Mr. Blowick

Might I say that the Land Commission does not give a holding to a migrant for the sake of conferring a benefit on him so much as for the benefit of the eight, ten or 12 of his neighbours in the village in which he lives?

Mr. Kennedy

I am sure there is an answer to that which I cannot immediately give. In view of the Minister's statement, I shall look into the matter again from my own point of view but if the Minister saw an occurrence of the type I described in his own area it would certainly give rise to a lot of criticism. We made representations again and again—I am going to mention names—in regard to the Coleman estate. It is not a very big estate and is situated in the parish of Castlepollard where I live. I have gone to the Land Commission and pointed out that portion of that estate is available for forestry purposes. You have there a forestry unit employing a minimum of 15 heads of families continuously. A lot of the land is suitable for forestry and I put it up that it would be available for forestry.

At the time the logic of my argument was apparent to the Land Commission but all of a sudden they closed down and said they would not take this estate. The man in question has more estates all over the Midlands. I want to know from the Minister whether the Land Commission are going to take any other land from that man in the County Kildare or the County Meath? Are they going to close down on forestry there? Has he a special influence with the Land Commission? not say that about him but I do say it about a number of people in the Midlands who can snap their fingers and have more pull with the Land Commission than any politician. Certainly, the attitude of the Land Commission in regard to the Coleman estate has given rise to criticism all over the County Westmeath.

You have in the adjoining two parishes a square mile of land without a person living on it. You have the Land Commission interfering in regard to the Fagan estate where there is employment given. It is a continuous estate and not a bit of land here and there. The Land Commission have a lot of explaining to do in regard to their attitude towards that.

Again, you have the O'Beirne estate at Dysart. That is another small estate beside which migrants were planted. It is time that the smallholders around Dysart were given a chance and that there would be some translation from one smallholding to another and a readjustment of the areas. We made no objection when the Casey estate was divided and migrants were landed in it. The people in Ballyneigh and Dysart should be given a chance to be farmers. A lot of people in the Midlands with seven or eight acres are selling out and going to England. I do not blame them because, with the continuous rise in wages, the contrast between the standard of living enjoyed by the labouring man and their standard of living makes them sell out bag and baggage and emigrate. It is time that the Land Commission, when they are dividing the O'Beirne estate, should consider the case of the people at Ballyneigh. The same remarks apply to the parish of Castletowngeoghegan.

I mentioned the smallholders in Longford. There are 2,228 smallholders whose valuations are above £4 and do not exceed £15 in the County Westmeath. Castletowngeoghegan takes in Tyrrellspass and Raheenmore. Then you have Cloneyhigue which is the poorest district in Westmeath where valuations are as low as £1 and £2. There you have a case for dealing with the smallholders in that parish if they are not to give up the ghost, sell the few items they have and leave the mud cabin. These are the principal points I want to make and they embrace matters in relation to divisions of land in a recent division this year and the strict examination of the credentials of migrants. I cannot immediately give an answer to the Minister when he says they get a farm because the land they give up will give relief to someone else. The case seems unanswerable for the moment, but I am sure there is a way out of that, too.

Mr. Donegan

I have heard Deputy after Deputy cry for more land division, say that the Land Commission are not doing their job and give expression to similar grievances. If you analyse the thing you will see that the truth is that those Deputies, one and all, are on the safest bet that ever was. The Land Commission cannot satisfy everybody. The question we must all ask ourselves is: has land division—which was the concept of the late Deputy Patrick Hogan, the first Minister for Agriculture, and which was then possibly the proper and the right thing—justified itself? Has it done what its instigator thought it would do and wished it to do?

I feel that the problem of land division cannot be faced more realistically than it is being faced at the present time If you go into the Library and look up the Estimates for some years past you will see that, every year, a sum of about £2,000,000 is devoted to land division. If you look further through the Estimates, I think it is true to say that you will find that not more than one third of that money can be expended on the actual purchase of land. By the time new hedges, ditches, houses and outhouses and all the other things that are necessary are provided the most that can be divided in any one year is about 7,000 acres of land.

To-day, we possess 12,000,000 acres of arable land. What is the impact of an annual land division of 7,000 acres on a holding of 12,000,000 acres? In my view, the impact must be negligible and the result must always be unsatisfying and for that reason, I think, the division of land is not the answer in this matter. I think the approach to it at the moment has become outmoded. There was a time when the idea of land division was that you broke up a great area of land on which there was a man, a dog and a stick and gave people who would plough it and sow corn thereon and set up a rotation from 24 to 32 acres of land. That, I think, has become completely out of date. In a few counties, there are these large holdings—I think I said this the first time I came into this House on the Estimate for the Department of Lands—which are finishing shops. The owner of 100 or 200 acres passes through his hands in a year an extremely large number of cattle which have been finished on his land and which pass out of this country to bring us the profit we need and help, as its largest help, our balance of payments problem.

It is a problem as to whether or not there is any reason to divide these holdings. There may have been many of them 30 years ago but I wonder whether, to-day, they are, in fact, not giving their due proportion of revenue and of help to the State and the people, or whether, in fact, they are not and we should divide them. Again, what about the lucky fellow, the one fellow in 50 who gets the land? I think it was said here that if you went into any pub in the country on any night in the year and looked around you, one out of every three persons in that public house, a fair cross-section of the community, had applied for land.

Let us assume that the Land Commission get about 250,000 letters per year on this subject. This lucky fellow, the fellow in 50, the man who has been successful in his efforts and who has convinced the Land Commission, the Lay Commissioners and so forth, that he was an uneconomic holder and should get land, and has the lucky accident on his side that his own farm is needed to help somebody else, gets a bit of land in this year of mass production, 1956, comprising from 24 to 32 acres on which he must set up in one unit a different rotation from that practised before. Perhaps he is a man without a lot of capital. I do not believe you have given him any hope for the future at all. I do not think he has been given anything on which he will rear his family decently.

I think it will need maybe 50 statute acres of land before a man is to-day able to achieve what we would like him to achieve. Where we increase the acreage, we decrease the number of men. It is a problem and I believe the approach to the problem is not the approach of land division. At any rate, I do not think it is the best approach. Please God, we will face that problem. I do not want to be quoted as saying that I do not want the problem to be faced, because I do, but I believe—except perhaps with application to individual instances in different parts of the country—that our approach to the problem of uneconomic holdings should not be the present approach.

If, in certain areas where you have too many people and too little land, we could introduce forms of specialised farming—even if it were possible to give them 100 per cent. grants for large piggeries, for instance—it might be better, when all is said and done. We have not many men with 500 or 1,000 pigs at present but, please God, there will be more and these men do make pigs pay. It might be possible to give these men something like that. Even if we set up in a parish or two parishes a co-operative mill where they could get their foodstuffs at rock-bottom prices, I believe we would be doing more for 50, 100 or 200 persons than we are doing to-day for five or six. I sincerely believe that all we are able to do to-day is very little for very few.

Maybe there is something in the concept of interlacing the uneconomic holder with our present system of giving large grants to industrial concerns set up west of the Shannon. Could we not say to these people: we will give you a grant but if you have 100 untrained employees we expect you to take 50 or 75 of these people from uneconomic holdings?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister for Lands has no responsibility for that.

Mr. Donegan

He might have, if that concept were carried out. Perhaps there is nothing in it; perhaps there is. As it stands at the moment, I feel the Land Commission is merely an opportunity for politicians to ask for something which they know they cannot get—and they are safe so long as they can do that.

Mr. J. Flynn

I should like to ask the Minister why, in regard to the activities of the Land Commission in South Kerry, land that has been acquired for some years down there is not being divided, and also why large areas of turbary which have been acquired by the Land Commission now for some years have not so far been divided. The matter is very urgent. I had to table a question or two in regard to it and I should like to get some definite information from the Minister in this regard.

On the subject of migration, I should like to point out to the Minister that very little has been done for the people I represent in South Kerry, so far as meeting their requirements when they apply for migration. I took occasion to look up the returns. I am not aware whether or not there is a later report than the one up to 1954, but, in comparison with the Minister's own constituency and other counties, we suffer very badly. In South Kerry in the present year, we had very few people transferred, and, with all due respect to the Minister, I think he and his Department have ignored us completely in so far as attending to the problems I have mentioned are concerned. I know that he will probably say, as he has said before, that the people who had been offered holdings from the South Kerry area did not avail of the offer, but as far as I am aware the offers are very few in comparison with the numbers who apply. Whether it is political bias or not, I do not know. I think, again with all due respect to the Minister, that he is the most politically minded Minister in the whole Government and biased against us in South Kerry. I am saying that straight out.

Mr. Blowick

Perhaps the Deputy might explain how that would benefit me, even if I was.

Mr. J. Flynn

If you were so minded it would prevent you from acting in a just and honourable way in relation to the people I represent and deciding each case on its merits.

Mr. Blowick

The Deputy is talking through his hat.

Mr. J. Flynn

There is some business going on in Kerry like the Valentia area where political appointments were made in a forestry scheme. That will lead to trouble, I am telling you.

Mr. Blowick

Where was that?

Mr. J. Flynn

In Cahirciveen, you appointed a head labourer on political bias, a man not qualified.

Mr. Blowick

I do not know the first thing about what you are saying. The Minister does not appoint head labourers personally. If he did that, he would not be able to do much else.

Mr. J. Flynn

This is the first Estimate on which I have charged a Minister with political bias, but I have to do it. Coming down to this question of the neglect of the Land Commission in dividing land that has been acquired for the past four or five years let in grazing, nothing has been done in spite of the urgent demand by numbers of uneconomic holders for the division of the lands. Also I have to complain in regard to the large areas of turbary acquired in Cahirciveen district and which had been applied for by people from Valentia Island who have no other way to obtain turbary rights. Nothing has been done there. I fail to see why the Land Commission, with all its expenditure, paraphernalia, equipment, inspectors and so on, could not give us fair attention as well as any other western county.

I hear a great deal of talk, perhaps justified, about the West. But there is nothing at all about places like South Kerry which are also on the seaboard and are as well entitled to attention as Galway, or Mayo, or any other western county. I hope that the Minister will indicate why his Department have failed completely in their duty to divide land there and do something for the people I have mentioned, particularly in regard to migration, the division of lands they have acquired, and the division of turbary which has been left there for the past four or five years.

Mr. Roddy

I will be very brief in speaking on this Estimate because, since I came into this House some years ago, I have been convinced that we are only wasting our time discussing the Lands Estimate. The Minister has always a way out if you have a problem about land that he has no function in the matter and does not accept any responsibility. I remember when he was a Deputy—I had access to the debates of the House at that time—reading questions he put down to the various Ministers for Lands. Then he was dissatisfied with the replies, and he intimated to the then Minister for Lands that if he were Minister he would settle the land problem in a very short time.

I thought, in 1948, when he became Minister for Lands that he would be a very good Minister and would cater for the congests and the small farmers by acquiring lands and giving each farmer as far as possible an economic holding. In fact, he said that to a number of deputations I introduced to him from Sligo at that time. He told them that he was in sympathy with the small farmers and the congests and that he would try to make their lot a happy one.

Evidently he has gone back on that now, because I know areas in my county where an alien Government did admit that there was congestion and uneconomic holdings, and catered for them as best they could under the Congested Districts Board system, and now substantial acreages have been allowed to change hands and the plight of those congests, recognised by an alien Government, is just the same to-day as it was under the foreign Government. There is nothing left now. All the available land in those areas has been bought up and has changed hands and there can be no further appeal to the Land Commission. All that is left now to the young men in those areas is to remain there on their uneconomic holdings, to lay their parents to rest in the family burial ground, and then seek a living in a foreign land.

No one expected that from a man who comes from a congested area and who claims that he came up the hard way and knows what it was to live on a small holding, and who said that he was fully conscious of the difficulties and the hardships of the small farmers. He has gone away from all that, and is allowing the people who can afford to, to buy up all the land they can get, to the detriment of the congests. It has been stated, and it is true, that he has refused offers of land in different areas. That has occurred even within the past couple of days, when I got a reply from the Land Commission in connection with a holding which they had been asked to acquire. It is a holding which the present owner bought recently and about which there was some local agitation. He was prepared to hand it over to the Land Commission, but they would not acquire it. If the Minister for Lands is not responsible, I do not see why there should be any Minister for Lands at all. It is a waste of public money to have a man sitting there as a mere rubber stamp. He should accept and have some responsibility just the same as any other Minister.

I will conclude with one further remark. We read in the papers about the number of migrants who are transported from Mayo up to Dublin or the Midlands. I wonder does the Minister realise his responsibility. Surely to goodness he is not Minister for Mayo. He is Minister for the Twenty-Six Counties. I do not know if it is true that the Minister has no responsibility——

Mr. Blowick

The Deputy cannot have it both ways; either I am responsible or I am not.

Mr. Roddy

It appears that some people can be migrated to Dublin and the Midlands. There is just as much congestion in parts of Sligo and Leitrim as in Mayo. The Minister is dealing with public money and I think there should be equity as far as the Land Commission is concerned and that congestion in other western counties should also be relieved. I put it to the Minister, as a western Deputy, and as a man from the West, that he should try to cater for every county where there is congestion.

It has been said frequently that the West is neglected and that may be so. Probably this is due to the fact that in the past Ministers in every Government were from Dublin, especially Ministers for Finance, men who knew nothing about western problems and probably did not wish to study them. The present Minister comes from the West and knows the type of small farmers who live there, and he knows that the western farmer's problem is different from that of a farmer in any other part of the Twenty-Six Counties. Therefore, the Minister should do his best to help out these people as far as possible. I hope that in future he will try to have migrated some of the people in Sligo and Leitrim who are willing to offer their holdings to the Land Commission in order to relieve congestion. I hope that he will create a pool of land for those two counties in Meath or in Dublin so as to facilitate the people who are anxious to move. I know in the Land Commission office in Sligo there are applications listed for 20 years and the applicants are still looking for an exchange. When you go to the local Land Commission office or to the office in Dublin, you are told that there is no land. Yet you see in the papers that people are coming up from Mayo or Galway every day in the week. It is not too late to remedy that situation and to give a fair crack of the whip to the congests in the West who are willing to migrate.

Mr. P. Brennan

There are a few points that I want to raise on this Estimate as it affects my own constituency. First of all, I want to say the activities of the Land Commission have been quite noticeable in County Wicklow over the last three or four years. The result of these activities is that the Land Commission has got together a pool of land that nearly reaches the 2,000-acre figure, and I understand they had no great difficulty in acquiring this land and did not have to use any compulsory powers to acquire it. I have no doubt, therefore, that there is still plenty of land in County Wicklow in which the Land Commission could be interested. I would be 100 per cent. behind the Land Commission—and I am sure the people of Wicklow would be 100 per cent. behind it—in attempting to relieve congestion because that was the purpose for which the Land Commission was first established. But I disagree with them completely when it comes to the division of land.

As I said, the Land Commission was established to relieve congestion and I want to put the case of my constituents here to the Minister and to the Land Commission. We have as many small uneconomic holders in Wicklow as in any other county. There may be some constituencies on the western seaboard that have their own problems but certainly we have a problem in Wicklow due to the fact that it is a mountainous county with a large number of small holdings at the foot of those mountains. I think the Land Commission has a duty to perform to the people who live on these holdings, when it acquires land and sub-divides it in that particular county or constituency. Quite recently the Land Commission has brought in some migrants from Kerry, I believe, to holdings down in South Wicklow and I understand no local applicant was successful in getting land there.

I am fully aware that there was a great number of applicants for that land. Dozens and dozens of local people applied for land on the Shelton Abbey estate. I will not say all these applicants were ignored, but they were not successful. I think it is very unfair because the Land Commission has a duty towards those people in the eastern counties just as to the people on the western seaboard and its first duty should be to try to relieve the congestion in the county where it acquires large tracts of land.

Quite close to me at home another substantial farm has been acquired by the Land Commission, a farm of almost 600 acres, and I have in my possession now a list of 35 small uneconomic holders in the vicinity of that farm. I certainly hope that their applications will not be treated in the same manner as were the people who sought Shelton Abbey land. I think it is not good enough that the Land Commission should completely ignore small uneconomic holdings within a reasonable distance of the farm that is being divided. The Minister did mention here when Deputy Kennedy was speaking that migrants were not given farms just for the purpose of bettering their positions but were given farms so that there would be a pool of land available in the areas which they were to leave. That might apply also in other counties and it could apply in Wicklow. There is no good reason why small farmers should not be migrated in their own county for the purpose of relieving congestion in other parts of the county. I certainly hope that when the Land Commission come to decide on a scheme for the lands of Tom Breen, Carnew, that they will take into consideration applications of local uneconomic holders.

I think I mentioned on this Estimate last year the position in regard to lands acquired for forestry. The majority of these farms at the foot of the mountains would have eight, ten or 20 acres of what would be considered locally as arable land. I hope when that land is acquired that the Forestry Division will make available to the Land Commission the portion of the land that is considered arable for the purpose of improving the holdings of the farmers in that particular district. Some of them are very badly hit and are trying to farm under very difficult circumstances. The amount of arable land they have is very small, and any little they could get from the Land Commission, even though it may not be considered 100 per cent., would certainly be welcome. I hope that when such cases arise the Minister or the Land Commission will do something for them.

I congratulate the Land Commission on their activities in County Wicklow; I am 100 per cent. behind them in their efforts. However, I think there is still plenty of scope for them in Wicklow. They failed us in one instance in which I had brought the matter to the Minister's notice. It was in connection with the Bulford estate. The Land Commission became interested in it and went a certain distance towards acquiring it. Due to some pressure brought to bear on them, however, the Commission discontinued their efforts. At the time, I said that political pressure was brought to bear on them. I still submit that political pressure was brought to bear on the Land Commission in that case by the Minister's colleagues in the Government.

Because of that pressure, the Land Commission withdraw their interest and allowed the farm to be bought by a man who already had a substantial farm. That was very wrong, particularly in an area where there was such a large number of uneconomic holdings and where there were so many landless men. I repeat that the Land Commission withdrew their interest in that estate because of the political pressure brought to bear on them. It would be very interesting if the file in connection with that estate were placed on the table of the House. I feel sure my accusation would then be substantiated.

Quite recently I attended a meeting of farmers in my area. They were interested in the Beck estate in Carnew. The vast majority of them wanted land. All of them were living either on small holdings with no other means of livelihood, or were landless men. When this farm comes to be allocated, I suggest that all these men be considered. I believe there should be some scheme under which landless men would be provided for; I suggest that a certain portion of acquired farms be divided among landless men in the different districts. I have no doubt that most of these men would make an honest effort to work such farms.

I have no more to say except to repeat my expression of appreciation of the efforts the Land Commission are making to acquire land. I, or the people whom I represent, are not behind them in some of their activities because we believe that local applicants for land should be considered first and also that there should be provision for giving land to landless men.

Mr. Crowe

As Deputy T. Lynch has said, it is not easy for the Minister for Lands or for the Land Commission to please everybody. As a matter of fact, I am not very pleased with them myself. I disagree entirely with the method adopted by the Land Commission in the division of land. Where there are sufficient applicants for land in an area in which an estate comes up for division, I believe all migrants should be kept out. Such land should be divided up between the small farmers and the cottiers in the area and the Land Commission should then proceed to build houses for the farmers' sons. The farmers in these areas are the people who have borne the brunt of the fight against landlordism. They are the people who deserve most.

The system I am advocating, whenever adopted, has been a success over the past 45 or 50 years. In the de Montalt estate in East Tipperary, the land was divided about 45 years ago and houses were built on the holdings for the farmers' sons. These are all independent farmers to-day. Therefore, I appeal to the Minister to adopt my suggestion. If he has not the necessary legislation to enable him to build houses for farmers' sons, then I say he should frame such legislation. The Minister should also try to speed up the division of land which has been in the hands of the Land Commission for years and which, through conacre lettings, has been reduced to a barren waste.

There are several estates like the Maher and the Murray-Moore estates which could be very usefully divided. I would, however, appeal to the Minister to give reasonable prices for all land acquired and not to let himself be accused of confiscation. In the Ballymore area, there are at least 30 cottiers, all of whom are good industrious men, living on plots. I know a man in the Tullamaine district living on a plot. He paid £700 to the local auctioneer for grazing land only a quarter of a mile from his cottage. That man was able to keep 60 cattle. Is it not a pity that a man of that calibre has not got land of his own?

Mr. Moylan

Anybody who has, even for a short time, been associated officially with the Land Commission is very much curbed in his criticism and suffers even the further disadvantage of believing that most of the criticism he hears in the Dáil is rather ill-directed. I think we ought to take a more realistic view of the problems that confront the Land Commission. Deputies fail to realise the fact that the policy of the Land Commission is set out in legislation. Unforeseen difficulties and new conditions have brought about changes in that legislation. To-day's policy is governed by the latest Land Act, which the present Minister introduced some years ago.

In that Act, the Minister, like his predecessors, almost deprived himself of any authority to interfere with Land Commission administration. If any criticism is to be aimed at the Land Commission, it should be aimed rather at the officials than at the Minister. Most Deputies speaking here have paid glowing tributes to the officials. The Minister himself said that their resourcefulness was of a high order, their patience unwearying, their tact immeasurable. Whatever may be said about Deputy Corry's £700, the Minister said that about the officials. Because Deputies continue to aim at the wrong target and because the strategy of their attack is not coherent or well-directed, the Minister and the officials manage to retain their scalps year after year.

The Minister informs us that he has allotted 35,000 acres of land. In my opinion, that is a remarkable achievement. I am of the belief that any proposals from Deputies to increase the acreage allotted annually could only result in unwise and ineffective effort. But again, the Minister said he divided 35,000 acres among 1,900 allottees and that means that the average resultant holding was only about 18 acres. Many Deputies have pointed out here that that amount of land is not an economic holding. There is no use in perfectionists making comparisons with European countries, because economic conditions in this country are altogether different. It is my opinion that anything less than 50 acres of reasonably good land is not an economic holding and if the Department is to continue with the present policy, which actually results in the creation of uneconomic holdings, it is merely indulging in a very expensive and ineffective form of social welfare.

The Land Commission has been for many years in operation and it has spent many millions of pounds; yet, by the test of agricultural production, no improvement has been achieved. It may be that a relatively small number of families have had their economic position improved, but that does not justify the Department. The general situation agriculturally has not been bettered by the activities of the Land Commission. There has been no general improvement in the nation's economic position as a result of its efforts. Social welfare, in Mayo or elsewhere, like patriotism, is not enough.

Might I suggest to the Minister that there is in this country no farming ladder, no opportunity for a young man of energy and experience and with a certain amount of capital to get into farming? There are many men of farming experience owning adequate stock, equipped with adequate machinery, but with little capital who, with their families, remain bound to the wheel of the 11 months system. These are the people who, as Deputy Crowe says, if given an opportunity, would certainly make a success of the Land Commission efforts. The Land Commission, when they acquire certain estates, should divide them into farms of 60, 80 or 100 acres and let them to such young farmers on an annuity basis, at the full cost of the land and improvements. Only by taking such action will you have anything done in the way of helping agricultural production. Deputy McQuillan spoke about allottees needing machinery and fertiliser. The people I speak of would require no such help. Give them the land. They have the cattle, the machinery and a certain amount of capital. Do not bother with them any further and they will pay you the full amount back and will be an asset to the country.

The Minister should give a definition of what a congest is. Is every man who, in the official congested areas, owns one or two or three acres in a rundale of ten or 12 patches, to be regarded as a congest and is he to be relieved by the Land Commission? Surely a congest must be and ought to be a potential farmer? Otherwise, the Land Commission might do away with the Ministry and operate under the Department of Social Welfare. It seems to me the pool of land has dried away "as plain as plain can be"; otherwise, the Land Commission officials in County Cork would not be so zealous in their pursuit of those who own little patches of ten or 12 acres. It seems to me the Land Commission are wasting their time in that activity and that the Minister should have that matter examined.

The constitution of my friend and ancient comrade, Deputy Giles, is unchanging. It still protects life, liberty and the unwearying pursuit of Oliver Cromwell. He never fails to mention Oliver. When I listened to him talk, it seemed to me that it was not so much the Land Commission that was under fire as the Ordnance Survey. If there are so many farms of land of 1,000 acres and still more in County Meath ripe for acquisition, then the boundaries of County Meath on the map must not be what they should be. There must be some error by those who surveyed County Meath. The Minister might look into that and see if the County Meath maps are right, because if Deputy Giles is offering us 1,000-acre farms ad lib., there is something wrong somewhere.

I was very interested in finding Deputy McQuillan practically absolving the Fianna Fáil clubs from the charge of intimidating the Land Commission. "For this relief—much thanks." As he grows in stature and in experience, we will find Deputy McQuillan a pilgrim with staff and scrip, going the whole way to Canossa, forgiving us for every evil that Fianna Fáil has ever done to the country.

Deputy McQuillan points out to us that the Minister was elected by the congests of County Mayo to solve the problem of congestion and to relieve them of all their troubles. And what happens? According to Deputy McQuillan, the Minister arrives here with the oil of the congests' benediction wet on his brow and immediately he becomes the Lord Protector, adequately warted, of the Colonel Blimps and the Colonel Brambles coming over here in their ignoble retreat from the advance guard of Moscow, Messrs. Bevan and Pollitt. This is the Freudian centenary and it is very interesting to have such an incisive examination of the Minister's Jekyll and Hyde psychology made by Deputy McQuillan.

Mark you, I cannot go the whole way with Deputy McQuillan. I cannot quite see the Minister, Deputy Blowick, in the role of Lord Protector. I think he is politically too astute to be too deeply concerned for the success of the strategic retreat from the shadow of the Kremlin and I think he is too astute to worry too much about the charges of political corruption in the making of appointments levelled at him by Deputy McQuillan. Indeed, I fail to understand the puritanical indignation of Deputies Beirne and McQuillan in the matter of the appointment of a stockmaster in County Roscommon, or anywhere else. Why we should for one moment appoint an interview board, or a commission, to fill every tuppence-half-penny impermanent post, passes my understanding.

Protesting Deputies might remember that perfectionism is as arid a doctrine as predestination, and just as self-righteous. The Minister, because of his own local knowledge and because of the knowledge he can acquire, even from the Parliamentary Secretary, Deputy Donnellan, is in the best position to make such an appointment. Not merely in the public interest, but in his own interest as well the Minister will appoint to any post he fills a man who is capable of doing the work and, having fulfilled that first condition, the Minister is politically unconscious if he does not appoint a man who is a supporter of his own Party. That is my view. It may be—I do not know— that Deputy McQuillan is a secret supporter of the Minister and wants his cut. It may be, judging by the indignation of Deputy Beirne, that he, too, is aggrieved in some fashion. At any rate, if I were a Minister for Lands— which God forbid—I certainly would appoint my own supporter and give nobody any thanks for it, so long as I had a man who would do the job.

Deputy McQuillan said at column 1505 of Volume 157:—

"I am convinced that if anything is to be done in connection with this major problem, it is not inside this House it will be done."

I do not quite know how to understand that statement. If it means that an organisation may be set up with adequate capital and sufficient altruism to buy up and divide land according to legal methods, I do not suppose the Land Commission could very well object. But, if it does mean that any organisation is to be set up outside to browbeat the Land Commission, the Minister and the Government, the Minister can be assured of adequate support in this House and throughout the country. Many people have fostered in themselves the belief that they have a specific claim to land because they live in a particular area. I do not care whether they live in Mayo or Tipperary: it is the business of the Land Commission to divide and give land in the best interests of the nation and not in the interests of any particular person; and no one person more than another has a better right, unless he comes within the ambit of Land Commission policy.

I was interested in the Minister's statement about the design of dwelling-houses. I think this is a very welcome innovation and I suggest it should not stop here. I think the Minister would be doing a good day's work if he got his architects and his land experts to design a farmstead. In these days of automation and of definite farm labour shortage, the average Irish farmstead is an anachronism. The Minister would be doing something really valuable if he directed his mind to that problem and got his people to look into it.

The task of the Minister for Lands is a thankless one and the Minister has all my sympathy. My heart bleeds for him. I hope the voice of the people will soon relieve him of his onerous responsibility and let him go back to a peaceful and pleasant life amongst the congests whom he loves.

Dr. Esmonde

My difficulty with the Land Commission, and it is probably a difficulty which must be faced by every Deputy here, is the difficulty of getting information. It is possible to write a letter to the head of any other Government Department and get an answer within a reasonable period of a fortnight or so. I am certain that if any Deputy—this is my experience, at any rate—were to write an ordinary letter to the official head of the secretariat of the Land Commission, he would not get a reply within a period of two months. Why that state of affairs should prevail, I do not know. Again, if a Deputy writes to any other Department, he will get a proper letter in reply; but if a Deputy writes to the Land Commission, he will get a small piece of paper, an acknowledgment, something he could get if he were only an ordinary individual and not a Deputy at all. That seems to me to be quite wrong.

I have as many dealings with the Land Commission in relation to my constituency as any other Deputy; but, if I want to find out something, I have to pay a visit to the Department because that is the only way in which I will find out. I think that is wrong. Deputies should have a certain amount of authority, sufficient authority to enable them to get information and not to be placed in the same position as ordinary individuals. Our constituents expect us to get information and, if a Deputy is not able to give service, then there is something wrong with that Department. I make that point definitely and emphatically on the Estimate.

The other objection I have to the Land Commission is the extraordinarily frustrating delay in the dividing up of estates. I have one instance of that in my own constituency where a man came to me and told me he wished to dispose of his farm. The actual size of the farm was 45 acres. It was surrounded by congests. The Land Commission acquired the farm and it was two and a half years before they were able to divide up that farm. I do not see why there should be that delay. There was nothing to it; there was no objection; there was no difficulty about title. I do not know why there should be these frustrating delays.

There is another holding in my constituency known as the Ballymitty and Ballywalter holding. The ex-Minister sitting over there will perhaps recognise it because I started asking him questions about it in 1951. I am not the only Deputy asking them. I think every other Deputy in County Wexford asked these questions as well. The answer is always the same: The Land Commission have no plans for acquiring this estate but will make inquiries.

The simple facts are these. The owner of that estate is living in America. The land has been left for over 20 years. There are 900 acres of land, 300 acres fit for afforestation and 600 acres of good, rich, arable land in the County Wexford. I came into this House in 1951, and I have been trying to get the Land Commission to acquire that estate ever since; and I imagine that for many years before that my predecessors were doing the same. Surely there is something wrong there? What is to stop the Land Commission from having that estate examined and from buying the estate? I happen to know that in this particular instance it is not a question of price. There is nobody else in the market looking for that estate. There was at one time but they have withdrawn from it. The Land Commission have nothing to do but go in there and take it over; and I do not know why they are not doing so.

With regard to landless men, I agree with what has been said by Deputy Crowe and Deputy Moylan. The legislation as it exists at present really does not permit landless men to get land until other needs are satisfied; but at the same time there is nothing in the legislation against landless men getting land. I think it is only right. In many instances you have people who own no land — they may be sons of farmers and, in some cases, even of working men—who have saved a bit of capital and built themselves up. They are taking land, continually carrying quite a lot of stock, and they are of service to the nation. There is no use in their looking for land; they just will not be given land. There is nothing in the legislation to prevent them getting that land and I think they should be considered where they can justify it, and in many cases they do justify it.

The question of divided estates and as to who gets the land always comes back to the smallholders within a certain area. I could mention several cases in my area where estates have been available and, if there are no smallholders immediately adjoining the estate—in other words, not within a mile of it—the Land Commission will not take it. I think that is entirely wrong. It might have applied ten or 15 years ago when horses were used on farms and mechanisation was not existent, but under modern conditions it is quite easy and proper for a person to work a farm if he lives within a radius of three miles. I think that is a point that ought to be reconsidered.

Another point I want to make is this. You may have a case where you have two farmers—two brothers—living on a farm and working the farm. Perhaps that farm is about 50 statute acres or so. That is not an economic farm for maintaining two people, if they wish to marry and start a home of their own. It very often happens that, by their industry, they build up considerable savings. You will find a case where one brother Works the farm and the other brother has £1,000. It is well known that, with the present price of land, you cannot go into the open market and buy a decent-sized farm for £1,000 these days. Nor can you buy the wherewithal to set it up generally, build a house and so forth.

I know of one particular instance at the moment of a farmer who came to me the other day and told me that he had £1,000; that there was an estate being divided near him and that he wished to acquire a certain amount of land on that estate. He was willing to be charged a reasonable rent which would leave him a few pounds over to buy stock and so forth. The usual stereotyped answer comes back from the Land Commission: "No, nothing can be done for him until the landless men are satisfied." That is a matter that requires consideration, a little bit of foresight, reasoned thinking and imagination. You cannot run a Department properly by having it stereotyped and tied to rules. That is my particular grouse against the Land Commission. They are hard and fast and tied to rules. A system has grown up of almost total frustration, and a system as well whereby nothing can be done except according to rule—where you must spend 6d. to save 1d.

We are losing in this country by having tracts of land held up and not divided quickly while all these endless inquiries are going on—inquiries are going on month after month and year after year. That land, as some Deputies stated, is being let in conacre for maybe four or five years before it is divided up. Anybody who knows anything about land knows that land taken in conacre under a letting system is deteriorating all the time. I would ask the Land Commission to expedite their divisions. If they do nothing else they will be doing a good day's service for the country.

There is one other point I want to make. Very often when an estate is acquired by the Land Commission for the purpose of afforestation there may be contained within that estate a certain amount of land which is arable. It seems reasonable to think that some sort of rapid approach could be made to that problem. If I notify the Land Commission, as I have done on innumerable occasions, that an estate of 70 or 80 acres, including 20 acres of arable land, is going to be available, I do not see why it should take almost 12 months before the forestry section and the Land Commission proper can decide what is going to happen to that estate. Surely some approach could be made or some system could be decided on or brought about by the Minister whereby these matters could be expedited? In this particular case it is not a question of the land being let in conacre; it is a question of the land being totally wasted and nothing done at all. I would ask the Minister to give consideration to this.

Mr. Killilea

Year after year, when this Estimate comes before the House, it becomes the happy hunting ground of Deputies from rural areas expressing their opinions on the activities of the Land Commission as they affect their various constituencies. I suppose that is only right because it is in that way we try to bring before the Minister and before the Land Commission what we feel are the views expressed by the people we represent in regard to the Land Commission.

We have the case being made here for landless men and that the Land Commission should be prepared to make land available to them and to men with money. I think that the Land Commission was never established for any such purpose. The Land Commission—the congested districts board first and the Land Commission afterwards—was established to deal with the problem of uneconomic land in this country. The aims and objects of the Land Commission were, should be, and, we hope, will continue to be, the relief of congestion in the congested districts.

We all have our different arguments against and criticisms of the Land Commission when we see them doing something we do not approve of, and we can praise the Land Commission when we feel they have done a job very satisfactorily. The praise does not come very often. If an estate is divided and I hear the people who received land praising the Land Commission, I am always inclined to believe that the Land Commission must have done a very bad job. I think that the more criticism we hear, the better job of work is being done by the Land Commission.

There is one matter to which I wish to refer and which was referred to by Deputy Esmonde. It is a grievance which we have over the years and that is with regard to correspondence. If one writes to the secretary of the Land Commission, one gets back a stereotyped document and one rarely hears anything more about it. Deputy Esmonde said it would take a couple of months to get any further information. That is not the experience of most of us. Usually we get a tiny bit of information but it is not the type of information that is satisfactory to us. Many of us on this side of the House have criticised Ministers of our own Party for not having a more efficient way of dealing with correspondence in that Department so that we can get a little more satisfaction in the way of correspondence.

This matter does not hit me hardest because I have the runs of the Land Commission fairly well off by heart. I live in a constituency dealt with by the offices in Galway and Castlerea and in both of these there is an efficient staff. You can get all the information you require in those offices. Of course there are things that cannot be dealt with by them and something should be done in that respect. Some special section should be set up for dealing with correspondence as it should be dealt with. Complete satisfaction should be given in respect of all these inquiries.

There has been a lot of criticism here regarding the creation of ranches throughout the country. I am afraid that is happening every day of the week. We find some people purchasing a holding to-day after purchasing another a few weeks ago. In spite of the Minister's own Land Act, which he said was going to solve nearly all our problems, nothing has been done about these ranches.

Mr. Blowick

I think it has done very well.

Mr. Killilea

It has not done anything, as far as I know, in putting an end to the creation of ranches. Farms are being bought out to-day in the West of Ireland by people who already have large holdings and no effort is being made by the Land Commission to combat that. I think that if we are to keep the people on the land, we will have to get down to this problem with all our force and try to prevent people with large tracts of land from acquiring more land. I do not think that the Minister has at his disposal the legislation necessary to deal with this problem at all. I think it requires new legislation altogether.

In addition to that we have the problem of large tracts of land being offered for sale week after week. We have brought these matters to the notice of the Land Commission and tried to get the Land Commission to get after them, but we find that nothing has been done. I have had experience of that in my own constituency in the case of the O'Connor estate near Lavally in the County Galway. This was the case of a man who had about 300 acres of land. He offered it to the Land Commission which refused to take it. Now the Land Commission come along and have offered him a price for the holding, but he has told them that he does not want money. What he wants to get from the Land Commission is a farm of land of the value of the money they are offering him for his present holding. I think that is a fairly reasonable offer and I think the Land Commission should step in and take that holding.

This land is not the best in the world but it would do something to help out people in the surrounding district and to relieve congestion in the area. There are enormous numbers of smallholders around and about this farm who have little patches which they cannot till because they have nowhere to graze their stock. If they got additions to their holdings from this farm, it would relieve them from the point of view of grazing and they could use their own land to a greater extent for the purpose of providing the food that they require to carry them over the year.

I had also a question to the Land Commission some time ago regarding an estate outside the town of Tuam which is known as the Forty Acres. That does not mean that it contains 40 acres but Forty Acres is the name of the townland. This estate was supposed to have been sold. The people in the neighbourhood feel that it ought to have been taken over by the Land Commission. The man is entitled to sell his land all right, but what I do say is that the Land Commission should step in, buy it and give him as good a price as anybody else. In this case, there are nine or ten cottiers who used to graze their cattle on this farm for the past 15 or 20 years, or perhaps more. Now their cattle have to go on the high road.

First of all, there was an increase of rent put on them and then they were cleared off altogether because the farm was being sold. I cannot understand why the Land Commission does not step in and take over that holding. There are many labourers' cottages a couple of miles outside the town and there is no way in which these people can get milk for their families. The only hope they have is to keep a cow and graze it. That applies in the case of all the people to whom I am referring who live along by the Forty Acres. I hope the Land Commission will step in now and do something about it. Even the herd is getting the high road and there is no sympathy for him either.

I have been on to the Minister by way of question with regard to other lands. I have had questions down about lands in the Lissyconnor district and year after year I have got the same reply from the Minister. The Minister has denied that it was the same reply he gave me, but if he reads the records he will find out that I am correct. The Minister stated that there had already been land divided in the district. I am not disputing that land was divided in that district, but there is still a big area of land there that can be purchased by the Land Commission and divided so as to help to relieve the congestion that exists in the area. That would help to solve a problem and satisfy the grievances of people who were left out before and cannot understand why they were left out.

I have also put down questions about a holding of land at Cortoon, but the Land Commission is not prepared to step in there. The owner does not live within miles of the place. The Land Commission must be well aware of the fact that they had the owner of the estate at Ryehill before the court a couple of years ago. He put up the case that he was going to start a poultry industry in that estate and the Land Commission, believing his story, let him off. I wonder why the Land Commission did not check up on his story and find out the truth about the matter. However, it seems that the Land Commission never looked back. If they go there to-day, they will find that they have just given him an opportunity of taking down a lot of buildings and probably getting rid of a lot of timber. He has got time from the Land Commission to do that and the Land Commission have not stepped in.

We have grievances. While we are pressing and have been pressing for migration, at the same time, it is no harm to remind the Land Commission and the Minister that there are large tracts of land in the county that can be acquired. There are non-residential holdings that can be acquired. There is no reason why an effort should not be made to solve the problem of uneconomic holdings by the acquisition or resumption of such land.

In or around Ballymoe there are large farms. The Land Commission have been dilly-dallying with them for years, but little or no progress has been made. That is general in the constituency I represent.

There is another matter about which we have grievances, that is, the grants the Land Commission are making available for building. That certainly has been the most hopeless effort that could be made by any Department. They do not make any effort to come near the local government grant. The loans are miserable. Something further should be done by the Land Commission, by way of loans, at any rate. The county council have been coming to the rescue of Land Commission tenants throughout the county, giving them loans time after time. Those loans are very expensive. In respect of a loan of £300, the solicitors' fees come to about £35. That could be avoided if the Land Commission made money available for the improvement of dwelling-houses and out-offices on the land of Land Commission tenants.

We also have grievances in regard to the way in which the Land Commission divided bogs. There are complaints that the Land Commission divided bogs 20, 30 or 40 years ago, that no drainage was carried out, that the roads are lockspitted, but no roads were made. When the Land Commission divide turbary, it is essential that proper drainage should be carried out and a satisfactory road made.

As I mentioned in the debate on the Estimate for minor employment schemes, the Land Commission should realise that the day when turf could be taken from a bog with a donkey and cart or a horse and cart is nearly gone. There is heavy traffic on the bog roads now. The wooden bridges should be removed and concrete bridges erected. These wooden bridges were not made to carry ten ton trucks or tractors and trailers, such as we see now going into the bogs. The roads in general require a better foundation and all bridges, big and small, should be concrete. The wooden bridges are liable to break down and create further problems. If a bridge breaks down, flooding is created, and it is impossible to get the turf out because the road becomes a river after a short time.

There are a number of areas where the tenants have cut out whatever portion of turf they had. I have been pointing out for quite a long time the Clonbrock bog, adjoining the Churcher estate. The tenants there have been cut out of their turf. They got a further allocation some miles away, but it is entirely too far from them. Beside them is the Clonbrock bog. They finished at the boundary of the Churcher bog. The Land Commission have not made any effort to take over any portion of that bog and to divide it amongst them. There are tenants around Clonnabricka and Ballinamore Bridge who are in need of turf at the present time and there are several other places where the people are in a similar position.

Again I return to the question of the acquisition of land. Time and again, people come to me with complaints about the payment they receive for the land taken from them. I refer to the question of land bonds. It is a disgrace that if a man sells £100, £200, £500 or £1,000 worth of land to the Land Commission, he can get only £80 for every £100. Something should be done about it. Certainly, it is no encouragement to an individual to sell land to the Land Commission. I do not know what procedure can be adopted to rectify it. The fact that they get £80 for every £100 will not encourage people to hand over land to the Land Commission as freely as they might otherwise do.

I have another worry in my locality, namely, the question of the flooded areas. There were offers by the Minister that he would give some relief. I wonder if that relief will extend beyond the Shannon flooded areas to our part of the country. What steps are being taken? I must confess that I know nothing of any steps. I have not heard of any effective steps being taken by the Land Commission yet to deal with it. We heard of promises, of course. If this country could gain anything by promises from this Government, the picture would be much rosier than it is at the moment. Promises are not much use.

Mr. Blowick

The country got a fair share of promises, mind you.

Mr. Killilea

I could cite a fairly good number of them and fairly recent promises, too—promises which I know cannot be given effect to. The Land Commission should look into this very grave problem of flooding in those areas. It is a matter that should have received greater consideration from the Land Commission than it has received up to this. One man was offered a holding—he would not take it—but nobody else was asked to migrate out of the area. The Land Commission should make a drive in that area to relieve the position in order to prevent a similar crisis in the future.

We also have an outcry in many areas in my constituency, particularly Kilconney, Gardenfield and Caherlistrane, against the delay on the part of the Land Commission in dividing land. I could give one very good reason why the land is not divided. Last year, the Land Commission made a fairly decent effort to rehabilitate some of this land. It was one of the most useful pieces of work I saw the Land Commission doing for many a year. A lot of the land the Land Commission acquire throughout the country is land that has been let in conacre—land from which, as they say down the country, the guts have been torn. One of the best things the Land Commission did was to put those lands back into fertility before handing them over to the people who were to get them. I should like to see a lot of work done in that direction.

An all-out effort has been made to get more tillage, but if we make the land available to the people who are willing and prepared to work it we will get that extra tillage and agricultural production in the near future. We must make a little effort ourselves and we can do that by telling the Land Commission not to hold over land for years and years, letting it out in grazing time and again.

There are small farms in this country which have been completely neglected. One can only term them as being nothing but derelict holdings and I see no reason why the Land Commission should not step in and take them over. I heard criticism in this House one time of Dr. Noel Browne for having warned the people that, if they did not improve their husbandry, the land should be taken from them. I do not think there is anything wrong with that. The land in this country is for the production of food for the people and I do not think it should be allowed to go barren or become derelict. If a person is not working his land properly, there is no reason why it should be left to him. I would approve of the statement made by Dr. Noel Browne and I think that I myself made a statement in this House many years ago on the same lines.

Mr. Blowick

Does the Deputy agree with that?

Mr. Killilea

Yes. I agree. No holding should be let go barren by its owner.

Mr. Blowick

Indiscriminately?

Mr. Killilea

Yes. No holding should be allowed to go barren.

Mr. Blowick

That is a sweeping statement, but it is the Deputy's business, and not mine.

Mr. McQuillan

He will twist that.

Mr. Killilea

I know he will, but not half as much as the man who is sitting beside him.

Mr. Donnellan

He is the man who will twist the Deputy.

Mr. Blowick

All I said is that it was a sweeping statement; that it was the Deputy's business to make such a statement and none of mine.

Mr. Killilea

Does the Minister think the land should be allowed to go barren, grow rushes, weeds and thistles? Would the Minister allow that to happen day after day? The Minister can twist my statement any way he likes. I do not think it should be allowed to happen, while there are people prepared to till and work land and get from it the food required to feed the people. The Minister can twist my statement any way he likes. Let him make what he likes of it. I will defend myself in regard to that statement and that attitude and I think I would get a lot of people to agree with me, too.

Mr. Blowick

I leave the people to judge the like of that.

Mr. Killilea

I do not care one thraneen whether the Minister does that or not. I would make it a point of policy in connection with a number of holdings which are being completely neglected. If they were taken over by the Land Commission, they would not be derelict very long. If they were given to people I know, they would work them. If the lands are not worked properly, there is a way of dealing with the people concerned.

Mr. Donnellan

Deputy Killilea said that the more criticism there was of the Land Commission when they divided land the better they did the job. I hope I am not misrepresenting the Deputy. I do not at all agree that such is the case. I will come back to that matter later on. From listening to the debate to-day and last week, I gathered that the great trouble of a number of Deputies from the Midlands is that all the people who came up from the West of Ireland, from Kerry and along the seaboard, got good holdings of land and some of them good farms. The reason why these people were transferred was that they gave up as much land and, in some cases, more land, in their respective areas. It took a good deal of pressure to get them to consent to come up here to take land at all.

I should like Deputies from the Midlands to realise that, if a man gets a farm of land, the reason he gets it is that he has probably given up more land in Donegal, Kerry, Mayo, Roscommon or Galway which is suitable for the relief of congestion. I am sorry that Deputy Killilea is leaving the House. I was the one man who approached the Land Commission to get a man called O'Dea transferred from Kilbannon. He was a man who had a huge tract of land. When he was sent to the Midlands, a certain Deputy from the Midlands asked whose supporter that fellow was, seeing that he had such a huge farm up here. He gave up more land in Kilbannon than he got in the Midlands. It was more of an advantage to the Land Commission down in Kilbannon, near Tuam, right beside where Deputy Killilea lives, because it accommodated 15 or 20 tenants. When Fianna Fáil were in power, an exchange for this man O'Dea was asked so that the 15 or 16 people referred to could be accommodated there in Kilbannon, beside Tuam.

I could give the House many instances. There is the case of Lynskey estate at Barnaderg. There are 150 or 200 acres of land down there beside Tuam. I approached the Land Commission asking them to transfer that man to the Midlands. He got a farm of land near Navan because his land at home accommodated 20 or 25 uneconomic holders who lived around the land. There was no need to build houses. It was an addition and probably there could be a rearrangement scheme.

Mr. McQuillan

What about the Satchwell estate?

Mr. Donnellan

You did not mention it and neither did Deputy Killilea, but I suppose—however, I will go on with my own speech. I want to point out to the Land Commission that I asked them to take serious note of the case of the land at Monivea that was considered by the Land Commission Court at Galway. The Land Commission Court decided the land should not be acquired, but should be left to this individual, as he was going to set up a huge poultry station there. The heading on the front page of the Connacht Tribune was to the effect that a huge poultry station was to be set up there. There is not a hen cackling there to-day. It is a disgrace that that man should get away with a thing like that. There was plenty of timber on the estate where he was going to start a huge poultry station. There is not one word of it to-day, but he has sold the timber, whether the Land Commission know of it or not. I ask the Minister to investigate that case.

Deputy Killilea said from a public platform—I am referring to the Satchwell land—"he is a good farmer and the land should not be taken from him." I want to tell the Land Commission straight here the reason the land has not been acquired. The same thing applies to Lord Oranmore and Browne in the Minister's constituency right beside me and to other huge farmers in the West of Ireland, some of whom have 2,000 acres, the same as Lord Oranmore and Browne. They are making the case, falsely, that they have a certain number of people employed. They hoodwinked the Land Commission inspector into thinking that that was so.

I will give the House an idea of the type of employment. Probably they have a man with a cottage on the land. He is employed all right. He may have two or three sons, some of them 14 or 15 years of age, just having left school or possibly some of them have not left school at all. However, they are down on the list as people employed there. I ask the Land Commission not to be deceived by business of that description. I am mentioning two people in particular: (1) in my own area, Satch well at Creggs, and (2) Lord Oranmor and Browne who, I say here, last year sent in a return of over 50 men employed when only 14 were employed. I ask the Land Commission and the Government to look into that and not to allow that class of thing to happen. It is happening. In the case of the Satchwell lands, some time ago, things were nearly arranged, but, owing to some bereavement in the family, the matter was upset. That was six years ago and it is time to have it fixed up.

I hope that when we come to discuss the Estimate for this Department next year, I shall not have to ask the Minister and the Land Commission to look into this matter of certain people like Lord Oranmore and Browne, Satchwell and other individuals—I do not like mentioning names here—putting up a case of employment and saying they have so-and-so employed. The type of employment they have is child employment but it is giving them a list of names and the number and it is allowing them to hold the land.

I can quite understand the difficulty which the Land Commission faces. Sometimes they have land held over for quite a while, the reason being that they are hoping to acquire more beside it. Suppose they get 50 acres of land. It is probable that 50 people in the neighbourhood are looking for it. It would not make a grave apiece for them. Very often, the Land Commission hold land in the hope of getting more land beside it so as to satisfy everybody: I know it is impossible to satisfy everybody.

When land was divided at Lavally in my area, right beside Tuam, it caused quite a lot of criticism. It would take some explaining why some people got land there, while others were left out. At the moment, land is being divided at Gardenfield, right beside Deputy Killilea: he forgot to mention it. I am told by the people there that some outsiders are being brought in. The Land Commission will hear from me about it. I had to go down there myself last Friday night week to a meeting. It was explained—of course, it was circulated by Deputy Killilea— that certain individuals were brought in there and were going to get holdings. The same thing applies to the O'Dea estate. Remember, the Land Commission will have to answer to me and to this House so long as there are uneconomic holders—people who are using their land well themselves—living around it, within the statute mile, which, I understand, is the limitation at the moment. I hope they will get the land and that outsiders will not be brought in.

I have a case in mind about which I approached the Land Commission on three occasions—the O'Connor estate in Hazelwood, Tuam. There are about 280 acres of land there. I know it is not good land. "Hazelwood" bears the name of what is mostly on that land. Nevertheless, there are quite a number of tenants there who, bad as the land is, would be glad to get it and have it reclaimed. They have the land rehabilitation scheme now and they would get the land into production. On the first occasion on which I approached the Land Commission to send an inspector there, they refused to have anything at all to do with it. I approached them again. The second time they consented and they offered this fellow £3,500 for it. This fellow wants land; he wants a bit of land somewhere. I cannot understand the attitude of the Land Commission who, in effect, said to him: "Here is £3,500 for you." The man who owned it has not another inch of land. It was left to him by his uncle. He is not living on it and he never will. I cannot understand the attitude of the Land Commission who gave him £3,500. Give him £3,500 worth of land in some part of Ireland. That is what he wants. Give it to him in some part of Ireland where he can build a house and get married: he is under 30 years of age. There is no case for saying, in effect, to him: "We will give you the money." He should be given land. First of all, the Land Commission would not have anything to do with it. Next, they decided they would give him £3,500. I hope the next thing they decide will be to give him £3,500 worth of land up beside Deputy James Tully in Meath.

Mr. James Tully

These are the types you are sending over all

Mr. Donnellan

No; I have dealt with the others as well. I listened to Deputy Corry, who has come back now to the uneconomic holders. Not so many years ago, he was referring to them in this House, when he was on this side of it, mark you—of course it helped to put him over there—when he talked about the uneconomic holders of Galway and Mayo and Donegal as "henroosters". That was the expression he used and he said that they were not farmers at all, that they were nothing. Certainly there seems to have been a great conversion when we have him coming along to-day to say that those are the people among whom land should be divided.

I think Deputy Moylan is right when he said all this criticism is misdirected, because "misdirected" is the word for it. If we want a change, it is a change in legislation that is required. That is my belief. All we can do, all that the Minister or even the Government can do at present is appeal to the Land Commission. We have been appealing to them for years, and sometimes—I suppose it is in order to keep us going—we find them all right; sometimes we find them all wrong. I suppose they work according to their lights; and I believe if we want a change, there must be a complete change. I wonder do we want it? I wonder if the Minister for Lands on this side of the House was the person to give out land and could give it out ad lib., what would the people on the other side say? They would say everyone who got land was a supporter of his. There would not be an inch left in County Meath next time that I had not put my own man into—that is what would be said. It makes one wonder would that be a good thing. Personally I do not think it would. No matter what criticism we may make of the Land Commission—I have no love for them and neither has anybody in this House—I think it would be a bad day when land would be given out on a political basis, because you find good farmers of all political views.

Mr. Rooney

It was done.

Mr. Donnellan

Probably it was. But it was not done for the people. As it is being done at the moment—very slowly, I agree, because it has to be done slowly—is the best method, and any change made on a political basis would be bad.

Deputy Killilea started talking about promises. Of course the poor man never stood up, but he had to talk about them, whether in this House or outside it. Inside this House, he is talking about promises being broken and it is in making promises that he spends his time outside this House. He talked about flooding at Belclare. The Minister went down there, he said, and made certain promises. I think he said a man was offered a holding and that he did not take it. If he did not want it, what could the Land Commission do? He said they knew well the man would not take the holding. If that is so, they were damn fools in offering it. So far as Belclare is concerned and the flooding there, we hope it is something that will never happen again. Deputy Killilea said that nothing had been done except for the people around the Shannon, while Deputy McQuillan says that nothing was done for those people around the Shannon.

Mr. McQuillan

And that is true.

Mr. Donnellan

Deputy Killilea says that it was only for the people around the Shannon it was done. At the moment, the Corrib-Clare drainage scheme is going ahead and we expect that what happened at Belclare last time in connection with flooding will never happen again. That is our hope, and we are working in that direction, so that there will be no more flooding.

I was delighted with the Minister's opening statement as regards the new design for houses. God knows, it was badly needed and I might repeat that. Some of the houses the Land Commission built were of the cheapest type possible—more like a barn with a window than a house for people to live in. Even though Deputies from the Midlands may not see many of those houses, any of them who come up by way of Kilcock, or that direction, can see houses that were built for people who got new holdings and I am sure the Deputies will agree that a change in design was very necessary. I am glad of that change and I hope it will be a great improvement because there was room for much improvement in that direction. I hope that many more of those houses will be built and more people transferred.

Mr. MacCarthy

I think we can all agree that this problem of the Land Commission is a very difficult one, because we are really reversing the process of history whereby great tracts of land were handed over to military and political adventurers by our oppressors, and when our fathers and grandfathers were cleared out of great tracts of land, the unfortunate people had the alternative of either emigrating or going into uneconomic, crowded areas of rocks along the seaboard of our country.

The problem of the Land Commission to-day is to reverse that process and most of us feel that it is being done far too slowly. Any criticism in this House should not, I think, be taken personally by anybody. It is just a spur to greater effort in making economic holdings, giving the people some measure of hope and contentment in their new surroundings. It is difficult, too, to move people from the surroundings and environment in which they have grown up and in which generations of their people have grown up. A spreading outwards, if that were possible—and I think somebody made that suggestion during the course of the debate—would be desirable. If there is land available on the outskirts of these congested districts, the people in the congested districts should be the first people to be moved into it.

The acquisition of land is necessary in order to solve the problem. From whom is the land to be acquired? Is it just a matter of going into the open market and competing with ordinary members of the community who are anxious to buy land or farms? Generally speaking, that would be undesirable, and nobody wants to cut down farms in this country to the same type of holding or to the same acreage. Consequently the position arises that if land is up for sale, and if there are suitable people going to the auction to buy it, it is no business of the Land Commission, to my mind, to go in there, unless there is a special local problem to be solved, or if the holding is so large that it is capable of being used to solve a problem.

Very often when the land is acquired it is left too long before it is divided. Sometimes not all of it is divided at once; there are, perhaps, a few fields or a stretch of land left over to become a bone of contention not only between the people who have already got some land but among the neighbours. If such a balance of land cannot be divided it could be used as a playfield for the families of the new tenants or for the parish. Nobody can see any purpose in leaving such an area over after the estate has been divided. When the job is tackled, it should be completed and the local problem solved.

Occasionally the question of water supplies for stock also arises. There may be running streams and such like, but it takes some time for the Land Commission inspectors to devise a plan under which the water will be made accessible to all tenants for their stock. That takes some working out very often, and it might sometimes make it impossible to get compact holdings, all with access to water supplies. Some tenants might have to get a field some distance away from his main holding into which he could put his stock during the dry summer period. All that causes contention. We come up against such problems every day. All we can do is make representations to the Minister in an endeavour to have the problems solved.

Apart from the land that becomes available in the ordinary way, the Land Commission occasionally might have their eyes on a farm here or there. However, before they can step in the holding is purchased by private treaty. The Land Commission then have to try and set about acquiring it from the new owner. When they go to do so, if the person who has acquired it is working it reasonably well, the Land Commission are inclined to give him a few years to get his own out of it, so to speak-to get some return for what he put into the land. The solution to that problem is that the Land Commission should not allow the situation to arise. It has arisen in more than one place.

All these problems of delays are a source of annoyance in many districts. I feel sure they also cause worry to the Land Commission officials. When the Land Commission set their mind to the acquisition of a farm they should go right ahead and not allow anybody else to step in and frustrate the work they have in mind to do.

I should like very much to support Deputy Corry and others who have spoken about those wide tracts of land attached to military posts which at the moment lie idle, except for a few grazing sheep. On these areas could be settled, in reasonable comfort, many families who at the moment are land hungry, looking for a stake in the country, so to speak. The taking over and the division of these lands would solve many serious problems such as emigration. These areas were cleared in days gone by so that there would be wide spaces near military posts where big battalions and regiments could be marshalled. Wars were fought in different ways in these days. In this country at the moment, our problem in respect of military forces is a comparatively small one. We do not now need those wide acres which the armies of our conquerors used in days gone by to keep us in subjection. Why not divide them and give the people an opportunity of making good farms of them? Build houses on those lands and use them to the national advantage.

Some references were made to land reclamation, to preserving the land we have, to trying to keep it from becoming flooded. I agree, because all this gives employment; the setting up of new holdings, the building of houses, the erection of fences and the subdivision of land give much good employment. That, in turn, means a bigger circulation of money and a certain improvement in productivity throughout the country. All that should be encouraged. I think we should go ahead more speedily with it. When one tries to set up an industry, it takes years of effort and propaganda to get people interested. Here we have a problem facing us every day which requires nothing more than the goodwill and organisation which, I feel sure, the Irish people are able to provide.

The Land Commission, however, must be properly staffed to tackle these problems. It is sometimes very bad business to say we should cut down the staff in this or that regard, but that might mean leaving work undone. It is much better business to have a Department properly staffed by people who are go-ahead and who will try to solve our problems. I feel sure the problem of the provision of proper holdings for all our people who need them is one of the most vital we have got. If our people are settled in happy homes on the land a certain number of them at least will stay there.

The Irish people in days gone by had a great attachment to the land. The crops which must stay in the ground a big portion of the year do not give the necessary return always. It is there that the other forms of husbandry, like the production of poultry, pigs and other such things, come in. These things will bring in some weekly money that will keep the young people satisfied, because if they have not got the handling of some money every week in present circumstances so that they can go around and have at least some measure of enjoyment with their neighbours and friends, they are inclined to go elsewhere where they will have their weekly wage packets.

These are problems for all of us. Any criticism we make is aimed at spurring those responsible to greater efforts. The Minister should see that the problems of our people on the land are solved more quickly and readily. As a means to that end, I should like to repeat my suggestion that the Minister would look round for those State lands, such as Kilworth and the Curragh, which could be divided up among the people who need land badly. There is no need to interfere with things that have grown up and have become part of the life of the nation, but there are stretches of land lying useless which would help to solve our problem. Then we would not have to fight as to whether or not migrants should be brought in. There is land there waiting to be occupied on which houses could be built.

We should set ourselves to the task of trying to build up a healthier and happier nation in circumstances where our people will be able to provide for the needs of the nation, and where the consumers will not have to go to foreign lands to purchase the articles that could be produced at home if we had more workers here. The only way we can have more workers is by providing more work and the division of land, the saving of it from flooding and from the sea-all these projects worked out locally would provide more employment.

Perhaps the Land Commission should be decentralised to a certain extent in order to tackle these problems, to deal with the difficulties that face it from day to day and see where it can make improvements. At any rate, I think we can say that there will be goodwill in regard to anything that can be done by the Land Commission to speed up the solution of the problems facing it to make more homes in this land of ours and, as I said at the start, to reverse the processes of history so that new families will be brought into areas which the landlords cleared out in days gone by and given an opportunity in their own land in our generation.

Mr. O'Hara

This debate has dragged on for a long time and many Deputies have already contributed to it. There does not seem to be a great deal I can say at this stage, but, as a rural Deputy, I feel I should make a short contribution. At the outset, I should like to compliment the Minister and his officials on doing a reasonably good job and making progress in relation to the various Land Commission activities, land acquisition, land division, rearrangement of holdings, provision of houses for migrants, and so forth. I should like also to compliment his predecessors, Deputy Derrig and Deputy Moylan, for contributing to this debate in a reasonable way. It is very easy to stand up here and criticise the activities of the Land Commission and point out all the faults and the weaknesses, but we must consider the many difficulties with which the Land Commission is confronted. The first and biggest difficulty the Land Commission has had for a long number of years, because the price of land went up very considerably in this country, is in regard to acquisition. Naturally when land went up in price, it was much more difficult to acquire.

Mr. Rooney

They paid only with paper bonds.

Mr. O'Hara

I will deal with that later. It was much more difficult to acquire land because the price of stock and everything else went up. In the part of the country from which I come, and even in my own native village, we have congestion and to a certain extent it is being solved in a rather peculiar and in a bad way. People are leaving their smallholdings and going across to England or America. Some of them are not returning at all and that is the type of problem to which I should like to direct the Minister's attention. In regard to the farmer who leaves his smallholding and goes across to England in order to earn some money to supplement his meagre income on his uneconomic holding, I should not like to think that the Land Commission would step in immediately. I should like that individual to be given a fair chance. We know the majority of these people leave because they are unable to make a living on their holdings and it would be hard to deprive them of the opportunity, if they so desire, of going to England or America for a few years so as to build up things at home.

In some cases, however, neighbours are looking after the holding or are supposed to be looking after it and it is not being cared for properly. They neglect it naturally, because it does not belong to them. They have it on the 11 months system, a yearly tenancy or some other type of agreement, and they are only trying to get as much as they can out of it, realising that the real owner may come back at a later date and continue operations there. We should appreciate that our only real source of wealth is the land and it is very bad from the national point of view that many of our smallholdings, even though they are small, are not being looked after in the proper manner.

I suggest to the Minister and the Land Commission that they should make a check-up on such holdings, not with a view to penalising anybody, but with a view to finding out how these holdings are held, how long the farmers have been absent from them and if the real owners, who may be away in some foreign country, have any intention of coming back. If they are a reasonably long number of years away and are not prepared to do something about these holdings, then it would be necessary for the Land Commission to take some action. I feel it is a matter to which the Land Commission could usefully turn its attention because that state of affairs exists at least in the part of the country from which I come.

There is a great need for more migration from my county to other parts of the country. It is possible to some small extent to relieve congestion within the county but not to any appreciable extent. If we want further to relieve congestion in Mayo and in the western areas generally, we must have more people migrated to other counties where land seems to be more plentiful.

Mr. Fagan

One of them gave £6,000 for a farm.

Mr. O'Hara

More power to them. People from the West are very industrious, and, if they have amassed a little bit of money, I think they are one section of people we should not begrudge it to. The majority of us claim to be descendants of people who were driven to Hell or to Connacht, and we are proud of it. If an Irish Government, even at this late hour, tries to help in a little way the descendants of those who stood for Davitt in the Land League movement, there is nothing wrong with that, but a lot to be said for it. We are very reasonable people in the West. I, personally, and my father and grandfather, had to live on an uneconomic holding of eight acres after eviction many years ago, and my late father, God rest him, had to go across to England for nine years to earn a livelihood. They were circumstances that were not very desirable. These forefathers of ours were a bit unwelcome in the foreign country at that time, and if they did come back here, after working in England for farmers or anybody who would give them a few pounds, and try to rear families, great credit is due to them, because of the fact that they held on to their religion and were really good and patriotic people. I am not trying to say anything about my own, but only that the people in the West were generally foremost in the fight for freedom, and trying to get back something that was taken from us without any compensation is quite a reasonable approach. The Deputies from the eastern part of the country have received these people with open arms.

Mr. James Tully

We have.

Mr. O'Hara

I appreciate that they have been received well in that part of the country and are becoming Meath men and Westmeath men and so forth. I have not heard any hard words said about them in this House, because I know they have helped those areas. I can throw my mind back over 20 years and more when I came along to Dublin in the course of my business and some of those towns were ghost towns. Kilcock, for instance, had only a few houses doing business 20 or 25 years ago, and to-day it is a prosperous town, due, in the main, to the fact that a number of migrants came around there and worked hard to build up that town.

I appeal, therefore, to the Minister to continue the good work of migrating people where it is possible to do so. Of course we cannot get all the land. In those areas where there is a certain amount of congestion, you have a community life, and schools, churches and everything like that. We cannot, therefore, expect that everybody will be migrated from these areas, but a certain number that would help to make more land available for the people who would live in the congested areas afterwards.

I think it was Deputy Lynch of Waterford who said that the descendants of evicted tenants should get first preference. I would favour that point of view, that, if it is known that families suffered eviction in times gone by, a special case should be made for them and they should get special consideration from a native Government. I know of a case recently in the Ballina and Foxford area where a holding of land was divided at Lissniskea, Knockmore, Ballina. In times gone by, the forefathers of the people in Lissniskea were evicted from those holdings, but, when the land came to be divided, quite a number of those people benefited in no way from the holdings of Lissniskea. They were quite sore about it. Strangely enough, people were brought from a couple of miles away who had two or three holdings already and got additional land there. Whoever is at fault for that class of thing, I do not know, but it causes quite a lot of annoyance. I was personally called along there to a meeting and these facts were put before me. It is quite near my own place and I am conversant with the facts. Something strange happened in this instance, and I would ask the Minister to investigate the holdings in Lissniskea, where some people who had two or three holdings already got more land and some descendants of people who were evicted in times gone by from Lissniskea townland got none.

Deputy Rooney referred a few minutes ago to the question of payment in land bonds. Certain cases have been brought to my notice where people have been paid by land bonds through that system. I pointed out the deterioration in the value of the land bonds at the present time. The Minister was good enough, in 1950, to try to get legislation passed in this House, and he did succeed in getting the Land Act passed after some time, to provide market value for holdings of land being acquired by the Land Commission. But I submit that, at the present day, this market value question is really a sham, if the land bonds value continues as it is at present. We should appreciate and realise that some people with these land bonds are losing sums of £500 to £1,000, and in one case I know personally the individual stands to lose £1,500. That is a very serious matter, and I think it is necessary for the Minister to bring in some amending Bill, or further legislation, so that those people will be compensated.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy may not advocate legislation on an Estimate.

Mr. O'Hara

I only just referred to it briefly. I think it has been referred to by other Deputies, that it is necessary to do something about it. Whatever way the Minister or the Land Commission decides to compensate those people, certainly they are entitled to compensation. I know that it is not the Minister's desire to set up here a Communist State or anything like that. He would like to think that people who have surrendered land for the relief of congestion will be paid full market value. He showed his interest in that, and proved that he was determined to do all he could about it in the past. I am only asking him to correct this situation which is a worry and most unfair, militating against certain sections of our people in a very serious way. Whatever steps the Minister proposes to take, I should be glad if he took them at an early date or could make some announcement about them.

I noticed that, in his opening statement, the Minister said that he proposed to buy land in the open market. This is desirable, of course. Provision has been made for it, I understand, and this is the first time that it was proposed to try out this experiment of buying land in the open market. There are, from time to time, holdings of economic size coming on the market, and many people comment: "Why do not the Land Commission step in there and buy that? After all, it is there now, offered for sale in the paper, and the Land Commission should come in and purchase it and divide it amongst the local congested tenants." It is easy, of course, to say that, too. I can see certain difficulties in it, and I know that this particular course will have to be carefully watched, because if it were known that Land Commission officials or Land Commission agents, such as solicitors and others, had arrived at a particular auction, the auctioneers would naturally have somebody there to puff up the price and that might cause a good deal of confusion. As Deputy MacCarthy pointed out, there are many of our own people who are quite entitled to buy holdings, our own nationals who want to settle down here. If such people have the money to buy, they should be afforded every facility, so long as they are Irish citizens and are not undesirables. I am glad the Land Commission is embarking on this new system of buying land, even within limits, on the open market.

I notice the design of the houses which the Land Commission is now building is much improved. I noticed that around Trim. Such an improvement was long overdue. In the past, we had a stereotyped building. It is pleasant to see some change made. It is a good thing to know that more amenities are being provided for those fortunate enough to get holdings, but it is a pity that a State Department should spoil a good job for the sake of £50 or £100.

On previous occasions, I have referred to roads vested in the Land Commission. In particular, I have referred to two roads in my own area. One is at Clongee, Foxford. The tenants there have their meadowlands in a particular area and over the years they have been trying in very arduous conditions, in wet weather, to get their hay crop out. They have found it very difficult because the road which was blocked out there many years ago has never been put into a proper state of repair. It has never been sown with stones and no gravel has ever been put on it. It is just an ordinary cart track. From time to time the tenants have carried out small repairs, but that should not be their responsibility.

A similar situation exists at Rinanny, Foxford. I draw the Minister's attention to these problems. Other Deputies have referred to the problems in their areas. It is not fair that these people should pay rents and rates and contribute in quite a big way to the finances of the State when problems which affect them acutely are left unsolved. It is no wonder people get fed up when a Government Department is either so indifferent or so conservative that it will not spend £400 or £500 to provide accommodation for the removal of people's crops.

Finally, I would refer to the old headache in connection with the Dickens estate at Achill. A good many tenants are living on this estate. The Minister is very conversant with the estate, and so is the Land Commission. As they say in that part of the country, it is the dickens of an estate. The ex-Minister often heard about it. I remember many questions being asked when he was in office. The rundale system obtains on this estate and the strange thing is that the land is measured in "ridges" about six feet in width; Pat Murphy owns one ridge and John Malone owns another, and they are in and out all over the place. I was struck by the way in which the land was tilled and how well looked after it is. Many of the people interested in this land go to England or to America to earn a livelihood. The Land Commission should take some steps to rearrange this holding, small as it is. I think the Land Commission did try to get the people to migrate from there in an effort to solve the problem, but the tenants refused to leave, because they are attached to their homes and to their little holdings. If there is no other solution to the problem, the Land Commission should set about dividing it equally amongst all the tenants, so as to rid us of this longstanding headache.

I was glad to hear Deputy Derrig speaking in this debate. I always like to hear both sides. He was quite reasonable in his approach. He understands the problem and, to his credit, let it be said that during his term of office he did useful work. Some Deputies think fit to attack everybody and anybody—Minister, officials, inspectors and everybody else. I prefer a common-sense approach. When I hear the present Minister and his predecessor say that everything that can be done is being done and has been done, I think that is a more reasonable approach. We cannot solve our problems by throwing somebody out on the roadside. The work of the Land Commission is serious work. The Land Commission is not just parcelling out a pack of cards. The problems are big ones. They are involved and, if the work is not carefully handled, a horrible mess will be made of things. Generally speaking, the majority of the Deputies who contributed to this debate are satisfied that, within the resources at our disposal, the work is being done expeditiously. Whilst we may not experience the end of congestion in our lifetime, we are at least helping to relieve the problems of hundreds of families. That, in itself, is encouraging.

Mr. Rooney

I am certainly one of those who are not satisfied with the work of the Land Commission. I appreciate that the Minister is solely responsible for the legislation which governs the activities of the Land Commission. He comes in here and gets from this House the powers which the Land Commission is statutorily enabled to use. I feel that the powers which have been made available through this House to the Land Commission are being abused in many respects by the Land Commission and not taken advantage of in other ways. I consider that, so far as the work and the internal machinery of the Land Commission are concerned, a very drastic change of policy is needed.

The only bright spot that I could gather from the Minister's statement, was, first of all, that extra money is being provided for the purchase of land in the open market. I think that is a development which has come none too soon. I learned also from his statement that 13 holdings, comprising 1,700 acres of land, were purchased in the open market by the Irish Land Commission during the last 12 months. Let nobody think that that is a great achievement. If we look at the figures, we will see that the average holding is something less than 50 acres, whereas, at the same time, the rightful owners of 100 or 200 acres are being put out on the road, under the powers available to the Land Commission in the form of compulsory acquisition.

Similarly, I have noticed in the Minister's speech that considerable progress has been made in the rearrangement of scattered plots. I was impressed particularly by the example of three families in the West of Ireland occupying 93 plots amongst them, and by the fact that those 93 plots were made into four compact holdings instead of 93 scattered plots. I think that is the primary function of the Land Commission, which took over from the old Congested Districts Board; and seeing that it is the primary function of the Land Commission, I am glad that this example has been shown to the House as an indication of what can be achieved by the Land Commission.

We read in the Minister's statement also that vesting or revesting is proceeding apace. What I have to say in this debate is concerned with whether, in fact, we ought to congratulate ourselves on the progress made in the vesting of holdings. I have mentioned that we have seen cases of the owners of land being put out on the road by the Land Commission under their powers of compulsory acquisition. These people have practically no answer to the law. The Land Commission tells them it intends to acquire this land and then there is arbitration regarding the price. Eventually a price is reached, against which there is little or no right of appeal. In any case, the obvious market value that would be given for a farm under the auctioneer's hammer is never given by the Land Commission. I would like to put to this House the view that our forefathers fought for the right of free sale and fixity of tenure. That exists in a very limited way to-day when we consider how the Land Commission exercises its compulsory powers to acquire land.

I studied what appeared to me a very foolish statement in the Minister's opening speech that, in purchasing farms on the open market, it would be necessary for him to be very careful in case the price of land would be inflated by the interest of the Land Commission in the land. I would like to know what kind of a duffer the Minister would send to the sale of a farm who would not know the value of the farm for which he was bidding, like every other man farming there contemplating or prepared to put a bid on that farm? Surely he will not send down a man who does not know the value of the farm or does not know the price that ought to be paid for it? Surely he will not send down a man who will pay more than the price which he considers in a reasonable way to be the value of the farm? Nearly 250,000 acres of land come up for sale each year-certainly over 100,000 acres-and we see here that the Land Commission purchased 1,700 acres in the last 12 months. Surely that measure of activity will not inflate the price of land?

In view of the fact that the primary function of the Land Commission is the rearrangement of scattered plots and the consolidation of holdings, I believe that the progress in that respect has been slow. It has been indicated, of course, that one person amongst a large number can be the cause of holding up that rearrangement and consolidation of a holding. However, I feel that, since that is the original and primary function of the Land Commission, it is a matter they should pursue more vigorously.

Some people are inclined to criticise the Land Commission because these people regard 22 acres of land as being an uneconomic holding, while others talk of 35 acres as being an uneconomic holding. I would like to point out that the question of a holding being economic or not depends not alone on the size but on the purpose for which it is being used. I would like to point out to the members of this House that there are at least 50 families in Rush who got six acres each; they were very glad to get it and they have made a very good living out of it. They made a good living out of it for the simple reason that they used it in a certain way. They used it in connection with market gardening. Of course, market gardening might not be suitable in other areas, but when we talk about the size of a holding let us remember the purposes for which we think it ought to be used.

Therefore, if we consider the 22 acre holding to be the standard size, let us then consider for what purpose it ought to be used. Should it be used, for instance, for cattle raising or should it be used for market gardening? Should it be used for poultry or for what purpose ought it be used? I believe the Land Commission should step in here and have regard to the economy of the district in which the farm is located, and its nearness to a market of one kind or another. I think the kind of farming that they would be expected to pursue should be indicated to those people.

It is obvious that on a farm of 22 acres people could not engage successfully in cattle raising. Probably, they could not engage successfully in dairy farming either, because 22 acres of land would support a very small number of dairy cows, and it is on these cows the family would be depending for a livelihood. Possibly the farm is large enough to support the rearing of a very large number of pigs and poultry, vegetables and fruit. We import a vast quantity of fruit every year in spite of the huge acreage of fertile land which we have here. We import classes of fruit which can be, and are being, produced in this country.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That is the responsibility of another Minister.

Mr. Rooney

The Land Commission are supposed to give a report on the management of these holdings each year and surely this matter would come under the heading of such a report. Many holdings have been given out and have been allowed to go derelict and become wildernesses. What are the Land Commission doing about that? These people were ready to take the land, perhaps from a man who was not in a position to give it, and who, perhaps, had to get out on the road, and it was handed over to a family which allowed it to go derelict. Where does the Land Commission come in there?

I know a number of holdings that have not been vested. Surely the Land Commission, before they agree to the vesting of a holding, send out an inspector to see if the tenant selected for the holding is worthy of this valuable gift from the State at the expense of the income-tax payer? In many of these cases, when the holding has been vested, the auctioneer is called in, the farm is put up for sale and the man who got the land puts his money in his pocket and seeks his livelihood in another field. I feel that the Land Commission officials should engage more vigorously in this kind of work. As we look at the small number of holdings which have been taken back from tenants we wonder if it is possible that the Land Commission selected such a very large number of successful farmers. I feel that the people in the Land Commission, on the whole, select average farmers, that they select good ones and bad ones. It is the job of the Land Commission to take back the land from the bad ones and to choose good ones.

It would be a different matter if these holdings were not such valuable gifts from the State. Surely the Land Commission must know what is going on? We have cases of farmers to whom land was given, letting these lands at £30 an acre to hard working neighbouring farmers. That is a privilege of using that gift from the State which was given to those lazy farmers, and that is the kind of investigation that should be pursued more vigorously by the Land Commission. I do not accuse them of closing their eyes to it but I would be surprised if they did not know what was going on and if they do not take action when they know what is going on.

That is why I mentioned that, perhaps, we should not be too happy about the rapidity of the revesting of these holdings. Prospective tenants should be put on trial; they should be given their holdings only as the result of investigations carried out by the Land Commission. If the inspector is not satisfied, the vesting should not be carried out. It seems to me that, at the present time, the vesting of land is more a formality than the result of a test. I would ask the Land Commission to insist on the supervision of these holdings in order to ensure that the land is being used properly.

I would like to draw attention to the fact that the Land Commission are frequently offenders in this matter themselves. I think that they must have 20,000 acres of land at the moment and they have it all let. That has been going on not for one season or for two seasons but for many years. It is going on year after year and the unfortunate man, who was making proper use of his holding, now watches the Land Commission taking a head rent from it instead of permitting him to use it until such time as the Land Commission is ready to give it to the incoming tenants.

Regarding the question of paying for land in bonds, I think that, owing to the fact that the purchasing power of our money has been falling consistently for the last 20 years or so——

Mr. Davern

For the last two years.

Mr. Rooney

For the last 20 years. I would remind the Deputy that the purchasing power of the £ dropped by almost 8/- between 1932 and 1940, the first eight years of Fianna Fáil Government.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That does not arise on this Estimate.

Mr. Rooney

That is a point which I would like the Deputy to keep in mind. If I may continue, with the permission of Deputy Davern, I would like to say that it is most unfair for people to be paid with these bonds when the purchasing power of our money is falling. Consider the case of people who got £5 an acre before the war, when the Fianna Fáil Government was in office, paid in bonds. Can we imagine the cash value of those bonds when they come to maturity?

Mr. Davern

Has the Deputy any idea of what some of those people paid for their land?

Mr. Rooney

They paid for it with their sweat and blood very many of them.

Mr. Davern

The Deputy does not know Irish history.

Mr. Rooney

I know it as well as the Deputy.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Davern will get an opportunity of making his own speech. He should allow Deputy Rooney to make his speech without interruption.

Mr. Davern

Did the Deputy ever hear of the clearances?

Mr. Rooney

That was only in Tipperary.

Mr. Davern

We stopped them in Tipperary.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Davern must cease interrupting.

Mr. Rooney

He does not like to hear the truth. Regarding the construction of roads by the Land Commission, I would like to say that they are not being constructed up to standard. It is most unfair to tenants of the estates served by these roads because these farms turn out to be a liability more than anything else. No county council will take responsibility for a Land Commission road unless it is constructed according to standard. There are standards for the construction of roads as far as local authorities are concerned. When the Land Commission are making a road for these people it should be a standard type of road, even if it is only of the minimum size. Such a road can then be handed over to the county council. Every county council is prepared to take over a road provided it is of standard construction but the lanes being constructed by the Land Commission are far below standard. The result is that these people have to travel through swamps in order to get along these car tracks on to the public road.

I would like to speak in favour of the local smallholders in cases where lands are being divided. There are many people trying to earn a livelihood in the neighbourhood of these estates. It is very painful to those people to see families from other districts moving into the particular estate. In fairness to the smallholders in a locality, a proportion at least of local persons should be given holdings, in addition to persons from more congested districts.

I was glad to hear Deputy Tully stating that there are abuses. It is quite true that there are people being moved into holdings here in the East who are regarded as unfortunate congests, deserving of a chance to earn a livelihood here on a holding of fertile land, but we find, when they have moved in, that they could buy and sell everybody in the locality to which they have moved and that there was no such thing in their case as poverty or destitution, that in fact they were well fit to purchase farms of their own. Why should they purchase farms of their own when they could convince the Land Commission that they were unable to do so and that they were deserving of a holding at the expense of the State?

I notice that the Minister did not mention the State Lands Act in introducing the Estimate. In many counties, there are State lands and it is obvious from the manner in which they are being used at the moment that it would be only fair if the Land Commission were to use the power given by the State Lands Act to acquire and divide these Government holdings. It would hurt nobody, except, possibly, the persons to whom the land is let for one reason or another. It would not impose the same hardship as is imposed on a farmer who may have 400 acres and from whom the Land Commission take 200 acres, on the basis that he can live quite well on the remaining 200 acres. That is done in the case of a farmer, while at the same time there are auctions of farms in the area in which the Land Commission could take an interest, instead of taking the land from a farmer who is using his land and who has come into possession of it by the sweat and blood of the past.

Finally, I should like to refer to what appears to me to be the very cumbersome method of subdivision. When the question of the subdivision of a holding arises, whether it be a small plot on which a house is to be built, such as a county council cottage or, in the normal way, the taking of 25 acres from a holding of 75 acres, when the application gets into the Land Commission machine, it seems to get lost. A very long time elapses—we never know what happens—between the date on which the application for subdivision is made and the date on which the subdivision is completed. We contrast that with the position of commercial firms and we ask ourselves how long the commercial firms would exist if they adopted that kind of administration. In most cases, commercial firms must deal with matters by return of post, certainly within a short time. There appears to be inexplicable delay in the Departments in the matter of subdivision. I know that, possibly, the Land Registry must be in touch with the Land Commission in cases of subdivision, but I would expect a substantial degree of coordination between those two Departments to ensure that there will be no unreasonable delay. I call it unreasonable when subdivision takes many months and in most cases it does take many months before it is completed.

The business of the Land Commission is mainly the enlargement of smallholdings and the subdivision of the larger estates. In addition to carrying out that work, I should like them to be more active in the general management of the holdings for which they have assumed responsibility when they acquired them for subdivision.

Mr. Fanning

It is a pity that Deputy Rooney is not one of the Land Commissioners or Minister for Lands. It might solve all the problems if he were.

I wish to deal with the question of lands that have been taken over by the Land Commission. There is land in North Tipperary which has been in the possession of the Land Commission for the past five years and which is being let in conacre year after year. To my mind, that is very wrong.

There is an estate very near where I live, 178 acres of which were taken over by the Land Commission, during the period of office of the present Minister. A further 200 acres and a castle in the area have been put up for sale. To my mind, the 178 acres would not meet half the needs of the people in this area and I do not see why the Land Commission should not step in and purchase the 200 acres and the castle which have been advertised.

The small farmers and the people in these areas have a grievance. When we fight for them, we are not fighting for political motives. We like to see everybody getting justice and fair play. When the Land Commission have taken over 178 acres, they should acquire the 200 acres which the same owner is offering for sale now. There are far too many applicants for the 178 acres. I did not want to intervene in this connection because I thought I might be wronging the rightful owner, but we are not commandeering the man's land, and I do not want to commandeer the land; the Land Commission are giving the market value.

There is another point which I must raise here with the Minister. It is the question of roads. The roads into lands were very badly made. They were made on the surface of the old sod. Gravel and stones were used. There is a question of the county council taking over a few of the roads in North Tipperary. The county council have requested the Land Commission to put them into a reasonable state of repair. At the present time, we cannot take them over because they would cost too much money. The roads I refer to were made some years ago—I do not know whether the present Minister or the previous Minister was in office at the time—and they are in a very bad condition. No worthwhile material was put into them. If the county council are to take them over and put them into a state of repair, it will cost thousands of pounds. As far as I know, the county council have refused to take them over, unless the Land Commission put them into proper order, in which case we can take them over. The Minister, who, like myself, comes from a rural area, will realise that it is no foundation for a road to put stones and gravel on sod.

There is another question in relation to estates being taken over in North Tipperary for the past five or six years and set year by year. I think that is very wrong. What will be the result of it? If a man knew he would get four or five acres, he would look after them. The Minister knows that any man who takes conacre will try to get the best out of it. That is wrong and I cannot see any advantage in it, even if the Land Commission do.

I had several complaints with regard to repair of pumps by the Land Commission. These pumps are in a very bad condition and never give a satisfactory supply of water and it is very wrong that the tenants should have to look after them. The mile limit also is wrong. I do not blame the Minister or his predecessor, but the Land Commission. That limit should be extended. Furthermore, I know places where cottiers working on farms were deprived of any ground at all. Perhaps the Minister has no say in regard to that matter. Deputy Rooney referred to the matter of land bonds. In this connection, I know a man who sold his land bonds and is at a loss. Some people are badly hit in this regard.

I want to mention a case where 178 acres were taken over near Thurles. I will not mention the name of the estate, but the 178 acres are still not divided. The remaining 200 acres have been put up for sale, together with the castle. I know there are numbers of people who would avail of that 200 acres. While I do not want to interfere with the rights of any man, or deprive any man of land, I think the Minister should step in in a case where there are plenty of applicants for land. The 200 acres of land and the castle were offered for sale and 178 acres were taken over. The price has not been fixed yet.

With regard to the building of houses, I wonder would the Land Commission ever think of changing their plans in regard to the building design. They have been building for years and there should be some change, for even the county council make changes from time to time. Some time ago, I was approached with regard to the question of water supplies. One man who came to me said that he could not get any water supply, that a matter of one and a half acres kept him out. Such a handicap imposes a great hardship on any man living in a rural area.

I do not blame the present Minister or his predecessor for the slow progress in the acquisition and division of land. Somebody is to blame. Sometimes there have been delays of four and five years and I would ask the Minister to have that matter speeded up.

Mr. Mooney

I should like to draw the Minister's attention to County Monaghan. There is not any grave call for the Land Commission to buy land in the open market there, because the county is full of small farmers. There are any number of farms lying derelict. I am an auctioneer myself, and I let land down there. I did not get as much money for the land as would pay the rent.

The land wants to be drained, manured and cleared of brush. If the farmers who take the land from me every year got the land altogether, it would produce good crops as the farmers would lime, drain and manure it. That is necessary. I drew the attention of the Land Commission several times to the matter of land in County Monaghan. There are no big farms in that county. They range from 20 and 30 acres down even to five acres. The land is being let for the past 30 or 40 years and it has become useless, but there are any number of farmers who would like to get that land and the Land Commission should look into the matter. The Minister referred to the open market and this brings up the question of bonds. What will be offered ?

Mr. Blowick

Cash.

Mr. Mooney

I should like to have that made perfectly clear.

Mr. Blowick

All purchases made in the open market or by private treaty must, under Section 27 of the appropriate legislation, be paid for in cash.

Mr. Mooney

Would they pay in cash then?

Mr. Blowick

Yes.

Mr. Mooney

I put down a question about three weeks ago about farms in County Monaghan. One farmer whom I know very well could have got a price for his land in the region of £3,500 or £3,600 from a private individual who could have paid him in cash. The Land Commission took over his land. All he can get for the land bonds is £2,300. Another man was offered £4,500 by the Land Commission, but the Land Commission bonds were worth only £3,500 or £3,600. These men are treated terribly badly and it is not fair. These men entered into commitments. There was a man who took land from me and he had to pay one quarter of the money down. I think the Land Commission should leave the land to the farmers until they are ready to divide it.

Another thing I should like to mention is this matter of landless men. Landless men cannot get any land. We have farmers in Monaghan with 20 and 30 acres and two, three or four sons. The best workmen in Ireland live on these small holdings in County Monaghan and live fairly well. If there is a farm to be divided in the vicinity it is a pity these men's sons are not entitled by law to any of that land. The Minister should alter that law so that, if a good sensible case can be made for them, these farmers' sons can get the land.

In County Monaghan there is the case of a man who lives in a cottage house. At the present time, he has turned that cottage house into a small farmyard with a byre, stables for a couple of horses, and so forth. For the past 20 years or so he used to take part of a big farm of land, manure it, grow crops on it and tend it. It was the same as if the land was his own. Every year the auctioneer came and he took it. Now, that land is due to be divided and the man in question, living in the cottage house, and with only an acre of land, is not eligible for the divided land. The Minister should change the law to the extent that, where the inspector is satisfied that the man in the cottage house is worthy of getting the land, he should be eligible to get it. A farmer's three or four sons cannot all get the one bit of land and those who cannot get land emigrate. If a farm is being divided in the vicinity, I submit that working farmers' sons should be given a chance as they would make good use of it. I could advise the inspector, if I saw him, as to who would be eligible and so could any other T.D. or the local auctioneer. Sometimes you will find a man who is not willing to work even the one acre of land which he has but there are plenty of men who would make good use of land if they got it.

Mr. Davern

We have in this country about 12,000,000 acres of arable land. Our population has dwindled to about 2,750,000. I am very sorry that many of our people are leaving the land. We still have vast ranches that are not giving the production or the employment that is desired. It is the duty of the Minister and of the Land Commission to ensure that where these large ranches still exist without giving the production and the employment which they should they will be acquired for the benefit of the State. I realise that to give a farm of land to a man now is a pretty princely gift. I am sure it costs in the region of £3,000 or £4,000 by the time the house and farm buildings are erected. I would ask the Minister to devise some scheme whereby farmers' sons and landless men with a certain amount of capital but without sufficient capital to buy land would be accommodated by the Land Commission by way of giving them land even on a rented basis.

To an extent, money has become an evil in this country because every little holding that is being sold now is gobbled up by the wealthy people and consolidated in a further large tract of land. I doubt if the Land Commission can prevent that but some steps should be taken in this matter as otherwise eventually we shall find that in most counties we shall have very big ranches and only a few smallholders. Unfortunately, that is happening at the moment, to the detriment of the nation's economy.

Deputy Mooney and Deputy Flynn pleaded for landless men. It is a pity and I think it is very bad policy to exclude landless men from any division of land, firstly, on the grounds of equity and, secondly, because a bad taste is bound to be left in the mouths of the people if local people are not considered in any division of these ranchlands.

There has been talk about cottiers. I know many cottiers who have failed. I know many people who died from drink and I know a hell of a lot of people who died for the want of it, too. While I know many cottiers who were failures, I know many cottiers who are an example to the people of the country. I think there should be no hard and fast law with regard to cottiers. They should be judged on their merits and on their past record. If they were people who took conacre, who kept a cow or two, they should certainly be considered by the Land Commission.

I said that I know cottiers who were failures. We should not, however, judge the present people on the failures of the past. That would be a very wrong thing to do. Every cottier who lives within a mile or two of an estate should be favourably considered on condition that he has been an industrious man in the past. That should be the chief qualification for a few acres of land.

I hope that, where lands are being divided, playing fields will be given to the local people under the auspices, of course, of the G.A.A. When they are given to a local body we have nothing but trouble and rows and parochial committees deciding who should or should not govern them, and so forth. If we are going to keep the people on the land we must give them more of the amenities of life. We must try, in so far as the resources of the State will permit it, to keep the people on the land. I believe that the provision of playing fields in every parish is one way of keeping our young people on the land. Keep them out in God's fresh air rather than have them going to the cinema, for instance. As has been said: "There are plenty of rooms for dives and dens but there's never a place to play." Provision should be made for playing fields if and where suitable land is available and no opportunity should be lost of giving that little amenity to the people.

Many lands have been divided where the water supplies are anything but good. We have now reached the stage where the old antiquated method of pumps is a thing of the past. Where regional water supplies are possible, I suggest the Land Commission should step in and take their share of responsibility by way of financial aid to the local authority with a view to providing an adequate water supply for the people to whom they have given land. We are 100 years behind our neighbour, England, in the matter of water supplies on farms. Where an opportunity arises, the Land Commission should be only too pleased to accept their financial responsibility in providing a suitable water supply in conjunction with the local authority. We very often find that the regional water supply is within one mile, or less, of a divided estate, but it is never brought to the estate because the local authority finds it is not its duty to do so and tries to put the onus on the Land Commission.

I am sorry to have to complain that in Tipperary South Riding we have some estates which, to say the least of it, are long overdue for division, one in Ballymore and the other in Lisronagh. I think six years is too long to hold any estate. They should be schemed as quickly as possible and divided among the deserving people. I do not offer any apologies to people who own large tracts of land which are not in production. These vast tracts of land have accumulated mostly as a result of the clearances and of the famine year of 1847 and subsequently of landlordism. I think in Tipperary and Galway we have put an end to landlordism.

Mr. O'Hara

We sent you Michael Davitt.

Mr. Davern

There is no doubt that Michael Davitt did a great deal for the tenant farmers of this country but I think it will be conceded that Cut Quinlan and the farmers of Sander's Fort, Woodford and Ballycohey put paid to landlordism in this country. I hope we have seen the last of it.

We have vast ranches in Tipperary and there is one of 800 acres the owner of which is in South Africa. I am quite sure I could give a guarantee to the Minister that he is not fighting against the Mau Mau, but I do not care whether he is with them or against them, where 800 acres of land are giving employment to only three or four people, I think it is our duty to focus attention on that, and to divide that land and put into it young, virile men who would give to the State the production necessary for our economy.

I hold that no man, or very few men in this country, can possibly farm 800 acres of land and, as I said during the Minister's absence, every small holding that goes up for sale now is usually gobbled up by adjoining large land-holders. The small man is unable to get money in the bank to finance him and the danger is that we are going to have all these smallholdings taken over by the moneyed people. Money is an evil when it means lessening the holdings in this country and lessening production. I feel if this process continues the Minister must cry "half." This Minister, or some Minister, must at some stage say there must be a limit to the number of acres any man may own. There is very little employment on these ranches and that is responsible for lopsided economy to a very appreciable extent. You have no employment, no production, but you have bullocks roaming around, and many of our young people emigrating. That must stop, and the way to stop it is to acquire the large ranches, put the people on them, and then we will have a happy and contented country.

Mr. Bartley

I shall confine my remarks to a reference to one matter only and I shall not detain the House very long. It concerns the administration of Sections 27 and 28, I think, of the 1950 Land Act, dealing with the acquisition of land that comes on the market for cash. I think the criticisms that were offered when the Bill was going through the House have proved correct because the Land Commission has not, so far as I know, gone into the auctions generally to acquire land. Reasons for that were given by some of the speakers on the other side this evening. They suggested that "puffing" and such other malpractices would prevent acquisition of land at the market price.

The Minister, when he was piloting that Bill through the Dáil, laid emphasis on the fact that the market price should be paid for these smallholdings that come on the market from time to time. I do not think there is any necessity to question that, particularly in respect of those smallholdings in the West of Ireland. Here is a matter of which I want the Minister to take a note. I have drawn attention to the fact that holdings were available in my constituency and that these holdings would be useful to relieve congestion. Criticism has been made by people in the Leinster counties of what they call undue migration to the detriment of local aspirants for land. If holdings become available in the congested districts and are not acquired by the Land Commission, then one must say that Deputies in Leinster counties would have some ground at least for their criticism. Here is the explanation that was given to me for the failure of the Land Commission to acquire a holding very recently when it was brought to the attention of the local Land Commission office—there was no congestion in the immediate vicinity of the holdings and therefore the provision of these sections of the 1950 Act did not apply.

I think in view of what the Minister said on the 1950 Act, that explanation is a rather lame excuse for the Land Commission to get out of its obligation to apply the provisions of the Act for the relief of congestion. If there is no congestion in the immediate vicinity of the holding, would it not be desirable to acquire that holding and to migrate somebody into it rather than send him further away? Other speakers have said that what is happening in respect of these holdings which the Land Commission failed to acquire, is that people with more money than they require, people whose means of livelihood is not exclusively or mainly agricultural, acquire these holdings as investments, possibly for the grazing of stock. I think that the Minister ought to see to it that, whatever about going into the public auction, where it is known or brought to the notice of the Land Commission that a holding is available by private treaty, that holding should be acquired. I do not think that the price will be "puffed" to a figure which would put it beyond the range of the Land Commission's finances.

I do not have to say any more about it because the Minister himself must have come across a good many cases of it in his own constituency. In view of the case he made for those sections of the 1950 Act, I certainly think the Minister should insist that these holdings be acquired when they are on the market and available for acquisition by private treaty. They will contribute something to the relief of congestion. Accordingly, I ask the Minister to direct the Land Commission to interpret the existence of congestion somewhat differently and not to qualify it by insisting that the congestion must be in the immediate vicinity of the holding.

Mr. Blowick

I want to say at the outset that I am very pleased by the interest shown by Deputies generally during this debate in the Land Commission and their work. A good many useful suggestions were put forward. Criticism, on the whole, was good and constructive; there was less wandering, if I might use the expression, from the beaten path this time than I have noticed for several years back.

One of the principal sources of complaint was that the Land Commission were slow about the acquisition of land and that the value of the land bonds which the commission pay for land has fallen. The questions of roads and the selection of migrants were also raised. I must admit that the questions raised about the Land Commission being slow in the acquisition and distribution of land were true. However, it is unfair for members of the House to criticise the Land Commission for that, because the law this House has passed has set statutory shackles on the feet of the commissioners; the laws this House has passed since 1923 prescribe certain delays, so that the owners of land, if they happen to be absent from the country, or if they happen to be unaware that the Land Commission are proceeding, will have due notice, so that fair play will be given to the persons from whom land is being taken.

These delays were deliberately installed in the Land Acts as passed through this House. The Land Commission cannot evade these statutory periods of a month in this case, or three months in that case, laid down by the various Acts so as to ensure that injustices will not be done. It must be remembered that the Land Commission have sweeping powers; they have the power to dispossess a man of his property. Surely nobody will deny that that is a sweeping power. It must also be remembered that, from the decision to acquire land or to resume it, there is no appeal; the moment the lay commissioners decide that the land of Mr. X is to become the property of the Land Commission, there is no appeal to any other court. The only appeal may lie on a question of law. For that reason, the House, in its wisdom or unwisdom, decided to make sure that the process by which the Land Commission deprives a man of his land shall be slow, steady and careful. Therefore, when a Deputy attacks the Land Commission for delays in taking up land, he is only revealing his own ignorance of the laws with which he should be acquainted.

I was proud, when presenting this Estimate, to be able to give the House a very good account of the Land Commission's activities this year. In the year gone by, over 700 holdings were rearranged. As many holdings were rearranged this year and last year as were rearranged in the three preceding years. Some Deputies seem to think that progress is slowing down in this respect. That is not so. We have increased our activities from that point of view by 50 per cent. over the past five years. We must remember that we are dealing with human beings —that it is not with land entirely we are dealing.

We are dealing here with men and women, their livelihoods, their whole future in many cases. Accordingly, a certain amount of care must be taken in the case of rearrangements. As I have said many times previously, a rearrangement scheme is not a Land Commission scheme. It is a scheme of the tenants themselves because, until the last of the tenants has agreed to the scheme and has signed a consent form for the inspector, nothing can be done.

Deputies from the congested counties will know of cases where an inspector spent the whole of the winter going out to a townland or to a group of townlands. He might have a rearrangement scheme completed, except for one crank who, at the last moment, will refuse to agree, although he may have given the inspector the impression that he was agreeable. In such cases, the inspector's whole winter's work goes for naught. I ask Deputies to remember that rearrangement work is different from any other kind of work the Land Commission handle.

A rearrangement scheme, as I have said, is not the Land Commission's scheme; it is not the inspector's scheme. It is the scheme that the people who are being rearranged agree to. If they do not agree—and very often one tenant smashes up the whole scheme—the Land Commission may not proceed further. On previous occasions, it was suggested that the commission were advised to deal drastically with the type of tenant who smashes up such a scheme. The justice of such a proceeding has to be taken into account. Sometimes the crank refuses to agree for the purpose of mere obstruction; sometimes he is a crank only because he is a crank. I do not know whether the sledge-hammer of a Government Department should be brought down on top of such a man.

Occasionally, it is possible to rearrange the rest of the tenants and leave the crank there. In other cases, however, that man may own seven, eight or ten acres of land scattered throughout the townland or throughout the parish in bits and pieces. Of course, the inspector has strict instructions not to allow any tenant to put the gun to his head in order to try to get a better slice of land in the village than he is entitled to.

Mr. Fanning

On that point, if a man who is in a position, that he can hold up a scheme, sells his holding of seven or eight acres and then tries to get a farm, what would the Minister's attitude be?

Mr. Blowick

The man I am talking about might have only seven or eight acres altogether in bits and pieces.

Mr. Fanning

I have known of a case where a farmer, who was offered a farm out of the place, but who would not please his neighbours to get out, tried to sell his holding of seven or eight acres later. Would the Minister allow that to happen?

Mr. Blowick

Not in most cases. It is a very hard matter to decide, because no two cases are exactly alike. As I have said, taking into account that over 700 holdings have been successfully rearranged this year, I think the Land Commission has achieved a great deal. It is a sign that the outdoor inspectors of the Land Commission in the congested areas are doing their work well. Sometimes we get criticisms from Deputies who have no experience of the difficulties that arise. That makes it appear as if the Land Commission, like every other Department, is a useful butt to have a kick at in the Dáil because it cannot reply. Occasionally Deputies indulge in that type of criticism; I regard it as a waste of time and when I suspect that is behind what is being said, I will not reply to it.

Various Deputies asked for certain figures. The area acquired was 30,473 acres. The area allotted was 35,596. The number of holdings vested, that is the number of holdings in which the Land Commission handed over ownership to the tenant, was 7,704. There were 1,031 holdings enlarged and the enlargement of those holdings used up 11,858 acres. There were 763 tenants who gave partial exchanges and received for the lands they gave 16,182 acres. In regard to other allotments, 204 allottees received an area of 7,556 acres. The total number of people who benefited from rearrangement, exchanges and enlargement was 1,918 and 35,596 acres were used up in the process.

That is a vast amount of land to go through. Some Deputies seem to regard the Land Commission more in the nature of a factory or a mill so that if you get sufficient men to throw enough land into the mill and set the wheels turning, suitable and adequate holdings with the tenants nicely installed will flow out on a conveyor belt. That is the impression some Deputies give me, that they have not gone to the trouble of finding out exactly what the work of the Land Commission is. If they spent only a few days with the Land Commission inspector in the course of his work, went in company with him, but not interfere in his work, they would see what the Land Commission inspector had to put up with.

Mr. J.J. Collins

Some people do that to their own advantage.

Mr. Blowick

In case Deputies think I want them to go around to resume the practice, which I hope is dead, of going around along with the inspector dividing land——

Mr. J.J. Collins

Some Deputies do.

An Ceann Comhairle

Unless the Minister gives way he must not be interrupted.

Mr. Blowick

Has Deputy Collins a question?

Mr. J.J. Collins

I was listening to the Minister's statement as to the number of acres being divided, apportioned and so on, and I wonder, before the Minister concludes, would he indicate the number of acres apportioned in County Limerick?

Mr. Blowick

I may be able to get that for the Deputy.

An Ceann Comhairle

I cannot allow every Deputy to stand up and make a second speech in respect of his county.

Mr. J.J. Collins

I merely asked a question.

An Ceann Comhairle

Every Deputy cannot question the Minister in respect of his county.

Mr. Blowick

Deputy Derrig urged the Land Commission to minimise the losses on resale. I can assure the Deputy that that question is constantly under review. In fact it is one of the headaches of the Department. To give an example, in 1951, the loss on resale was 33 per cent. while in 1955 it was down to 22 per cent. of the aggregate purchase prices. The same Deputy raised the question of the effect of rising costs on the output level of improvement works. Labourers' wages and building materials have gone up and are still climbing. The question was put also of the rateable valuation of the 43 holdings purchased under Section 27 of the 1950 Act. The rateable valuation of these holdings is £709. The approximate purchase price was over £40,000.

Mr. J.J. Collins

On a point of order. I asked the Minister a question as to the apportionment of land in County Limerick and he has not so far answered.

An Ceann Comhairle

That is not a point of order.

Mr. J.J. Collins

The Minister gave a general statement.

An Ceann Comhairle

That is not a point of order, and the Deputy has interrupted the Minister several times.

Mr. J.J. Collins

It is my second time.

An Ceann Comhairle

I cannot allow Deputies to stand up and ask questions unless the Minister gives way. The Minister must not be questioned by every Deputy in respect of each county. He is concluding the debate.

Mr. Blowick

Deputy Derrig asked about the area on hands and in the machine. The area on hands at 31st March, 1956, was approximately 100,000 acres, a large part of which is bog or poor land which the Land Commission found difficulty in allotting. Acquisition proceedings are at present in progress in respect of a total area of 54,025 acres and detailed reports on a further area of 5,403 acres are under consideration with a view to initiating proceedings. During the year 1955-56, 49,374 acres were inspected and valued and 20,836 acres were gazetted for acquisition and resumption. In all, up to 31st March, 1956, 1,201,000 acres have been finally acquired and resumed and, of this area, 1,098,000 acres have been allotted. The number of turbary allotments was 1,007, covering an aggregate area of nearly 1,800 acres. Some Deputies pressed for closer cooperation between the Land Commission and the Department of Agriculture. There is no need to press for that. There is constant and close contact between the two Departments and some of the legislation passed by this House obliges the commission to consult the Department of Agriculture on certain occasions. Deputy Palmer and Deputy Flynn raised the question as to the number of migrants from Kerry in the past three years. In 1953-54 the number was 11; in 1954-55 it was eight; in 1955-56, it was nine. The details of the land allotted is: 1953-54, 205 acres; 1954-55, 908 acres, 1955-56, 2,061 acres.

Deputy Beegan and other Deputies raised the question of the deterioration in the value of land bonds. To some Deputies who spoke about the temporary drop in the value of land bonds in the stock market, I would point out that it was the inter-Party Government and myself, as Minister for Lands during the period of 1948-1951, that introduced the principle of market value for acquired land. I remember that there was some very peculiar criticism, when we look back over the years, in regard to this matter. While we heard plenty of noise from the benches opposite when the price of land bonds dropped, very little credit was given to the Minister for Finance or myself as Minister for Lands when the land bonds which were issued at par rose above par. They are below par at the present time and I can assure Deputies that this is a matter which I will take up with the Government at the earliest opportunity. The Minister for Finance fixes the interest rate on land bonds each year and he does that in consultation with the officials in the Department of Finance so as to ensure that the issuing of land bonds for the coming year will not mean that those whose land is being acquired by, the Land Commission will be at a loss. But fluctuations in the stock market, just as in any other market, are entirely beyond the control even of the Minister for Finance and his officials. This year, the value of the bonds has dropped, giving rise to the complaints made by the Deputies. I want to assure the House that, if this continues, I will not feel happy. It would not be right if we were paying land bonds to a man whose land we had taken and for whose land the Appeal Tribunal judge had fixed a particular price and when we were paying the land bonds, they were considerably below the market value—in other words, that he was not getting what he was entitled to.

Deputy Tully, of Meath, asked for details regarding sums paid in respect of preview expenses. The fees paid in the year 1955-56 varied from 12/- to £5 6s. 1d., giving a total of £255 paid in respect of these preview expenses, and 64 prospective migrants were involved.

He raised the question of remnants of estates. He raised it by way of parliamentary question in the Dáil some time ago, but on that occasion the time at our disposal did not permit me to give him a full explanation. As far as I remember, there are about 700 small portions of estates, some of them let, some of them remnants of bog, but all of them just scraps. A fairly considerable number of estates are allotted each year, and as fresh farms or estates are being allotted, the number of remnants changes. The Land Commission must hold onto each remnant until some fine day the inspector finds some man who will accept it and will fit in with Land Commission policy and Government policy in regard to the allotment of land.

Mr. James Tully

Migrants will not take it, but you will always have a local man who will take it.

Mr. Blowick

We will be glad to know in some cases.

Mr. James Tully

Try.

Mr. Blowick

In some cases where there are remnants, we would be glad to know a way in which we can get shut of them. There is a good deal of criticism of the Land Commission in regard to the way estates are allotted. I do not think that in the whole history of land division work by the Congested Districts Board, the Land Commission or the Estates Commissioners in days gone by, any estate was ever divided that pleased everybody. As a matter of fact, if it came to a time when somebody did by any chance stand up in this House and praise the Land Commission or the Minister for Lands——

Mr. Donnellan

You would drop dead.

Mr. Blowick

——I would fall over backwards. What happens is that, when land is taken over by the State, people in the country being very land-minded and I do not blame them become very anxious to get some of that land. The Land Commission inspector is paid and is qualified to divide that land according to Land Commission policy—or Government policy, I should say—and to give it to those best entitled to it, number one, and those who he thinks will make the best use of it. For every one who gets land there are always bound to be at least ten disappointed people. These have their hearts set on getting land, and they are very disappointed and bitter because they cannot see why the neighbour should have got it when they did not get it. That is very natural. I quite understand it, but it is one of the things that make the work of a Land Commission inspector very difficult.

I know there is no Deputy from a rural constituency coming in here who does not get complaints—I get them myself—and tales are carried, all kinds of stories, about the people who got it, that they should not have got it. Every time I hold an inquest on the division of an estate, I have had to admit that the inspector was right. Some people, judging from what appears on the surface, might disagree with them, but let us get down to full details, let us get the papers and the circumstances of the various applicants, and you will find your information was lacking. That has been my experience both as Deputy and as Minister.

Mr. Fanning

Is that the case always?

Mr. Blowick

I hope it is, but I want to say this: the law of this House says that the acquisition of land and the allotment of it is a matter for the commissioners and the inspectors, but I want to make this clear that the Deputies are the law makers, and if a Deputy knows of any case in which the law has been violated or outraged, it is not only his right but his duty to raise it and to bring details of it either publicly here in the Dáil or privately. It is not only a Deputy's privilege, but, I submit, his duty, if he finds or thinks that the allotment of land or the acquisition of land has been carried out in violation of the law of this House, to draw attention to it, and I would be very glad to know it.

Mr. J.J. Collins

I should be very pleased to submit to the Minister's office the action of a certain Land Commission official in County Limerick who is actively engaged in propaganda and organising for a particular Party in that area.

Mr. Blowick

I should be very surprised to hear it, because Land Commission inspectors have their jobs and they are very anxious to hold them. I want also to add this warning to any Land Commission inspectors and both indoor and outdoor members of the Land Commission staff, that they are playing with fire, if they touch politics. They are supposed to give a fair crack of the whip to every person they meet, regardless of politics, religion, or anything else, and I would have absolutely no hesitation in recommending to the Government their dismissal overnight, if I thought they were guilty of any kind of discrimination connected with politics, religion or anything else. There are very clear-cut instructions laid down, and everyone is fully aware of the penalties attached.

Deputy Maguire is very wroth with me because I do not prophesy at least a year in advance the number of holdings that will be dealt with, the number of migrants who will get holdings, the number of times we will make rearrangements, in a particular year. I want to say again, as I said before on a previous occasion in this House, that I cannot prophesy what will happen. As I said at the outset and as every rural Deputy should know, rearrangement schemes, and the allotment of lands depend to a large extent on the response of the tenants, and very often one man will upset a whole scheme, so that any attempt at an estimate will be only a guess. A Minister should not indulge in guesswork or conjecture in this House.

Deputy Seán Flanagan is very interested in the Nally estate in County Mayo. That estate will be divided just as soon as the inspector can reach it.

The question of roads was touched on by many Deputies. I put it to the Deputies that the Land Commission makes a good road. I think it was Deputy Fanning, of Tipperary, who described it as throwing a handful of gravel on the top of the road.

Mr. Fanning

That is a fact. So far as we are concerned, we would not take over the roads because the roads were never made.

Mr. Blowick

It is the Land Commission that makes the roads and the local authority that maintains them. My experience in the Midlands and the West of Ireland, Kerry, and practically every county, is that the Land Commission makes a good sound road for the purpose of providing an accommodation road to an allotment or into a bog. While this House votes money to the Land Commission under sub-head I of the Estimate under debate at the present time to make roads, the Land Commission does not ask or has not got from the House money to repair those roads.

Mr. Fanning

I have known roads in Tipperary which came before the council and we refused to take them over because they were not made properly at all.

Mr. Blowick

The Land Commission does not make a public road. It makes an accommodation road 12 or 13 feet wide.

Mr. Fanning

I agree about the width, but the matter I am complaining about is the condition of the roads, which is so bad that we cannot take them over.

Mr. Blowick

The roads the Land Commission make are in most cases quite good enough for the county council to take over if only the county council would take them over in the condition in which they are when the Land Commission finishes them.

Mr. Fanning

That is wrong.

Mr. Blowick

If Deputies would not interrupt me we would get through more quickly. Deputies will have another chance. As I said, the Land Commission makes a good wide road and leaves it in good condition. What happens then is that in practically every instance the tenants go in and they use that road; they bring in lorries to take out beet, lorries to bring in turf, tractors and threshing machines. The road is grand for a while but, with that traffic passing over it, it first becomes potholed and then falls into disrepair. Then people come along and say: "The Land Commission made that road five or ten years ago and look at it now."

Mr. Fanning

May I ask——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Fanning may not interrupt. Deputy Fanning had his opportunity. The Minister is now concluding.

Mr. Fanning

On a point of order.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

When the Minister has concluded the Deputy may ask a question.

Mr. Blowick

I will answer any questions when I have finished, if I can. The Land Commission make good roads. If Deputies will look at sub-head I they will see that there is no money there for the repair of roads. I submit that there is provision to keep these roads in repair and that is under the Special Employment Schemes Office, either by way of minor employment scheme or rural improvement scheme. That is the proper machinery. Surely a body set up to relieve congestion and settle the land question must make roads to suit their particular activities. Are we to have four road authorities? Will we have C.I.E., the county council of the particular county, the Special Employment Schemes Office and the Land Commission? There would be desperate overlapping there and a criminal waste of public money and public officials' time. The Land Commission make good roads and those roads should be kept in repair by the county council or through the Special Employment Schemes Office. Those are the two bodies which are equipped financially to keep such roads in repair.

Deputy Lindsay mentioned the reclaiming of bogland at Ballycroy. That was tried out on a small area of ten holdings containing about 20 acres each. They were fenced, drained and cultivated. They were handed over to nine migrants and one landless man. At the moment in Glenamoy on the site of the grass-meal experiment the Department of Agriculture is carrying out very detailed and far-reaching experiments on approximately 500 acres of blanket bog. When these are completed, coupled with the experience that will be gained from Gowla Bog, it may be possible—I hope the experiments will be successful—to do something on a big scale with such areas. That may be possible when we know where we are going and what type of treatment will give the best results.

The Beckett estate has been on hands for six years. The position is that the mansion and 21 acres of land were sold to the Mayo County Board of Health for a sanatorium; 197 acres are held by the Forestry Division; approximately one acre went for three building sites; 50 acres went to a Swedish industrialist as a site for a factory. The total allotted is 269 acres and the balance on hands is 145 acres. In view of all that has been done there already I think it will readily be admitted that the Land Commission have not been sleeping on that particular job and I think I am not being over-optimistic when I say that the allotment of the remainder of that estate will probably take place next winter or spring.

Deputy Corry comes along then with this road of his. This letter, he told us, and it has gone into the debate now like my £700 promise——

Mr. Corry

Will you pay it?

Mr. Blowick

——was dated 16th June of this year; I think he stated that the letter was dated 16th June of this year.

Mr. Corry

16th May.

Mr. Blowick

The Deputy will not get away with that. The Deputy stated distinctly, and made a great joke of it here for a crowded gallery at the time, that it was dated 16th of this month, and to-day is only the 12th. He has since looked at the heading of the letter.

Mr. Corry

If the Minister will pardon me, the letter was dated 16th May and it arrived at the county council office this morning. When was it posted?

Mr. Donnellan

On the 16th June.

Mr. Blowick

The Deputy said it was dated 16th June. The Land Commission is now making an offer of £300 and I hope the Deputy will accept it. I think it is a good offer. Let me say, for the Deputy's information, that special permission had to be sought from the Minister for Finance to get this because as I said earlier, the Land Commission does not ask for money for the repair of roads constructed by the Land Commission. They do not do that as a rule. Personally, I am opposed to it because we would have too many road repairing authorities if that were the case.

Mr. Corry

The Minister mentioned putting gravel on top of the sod. My trouble is that they took the sod and forgot the gravel. The Minister can call that a grand road, if he likes. I do not.

Mr. Blowick

Deputy Corry also mentioned the Kilworth estate and the Curragh. There are two State properties in County Kildare, Ballyfair and Kingscommon. Ballyfair consists of 150 acres and Kilworth 825 acres. I am not too sure of the quality of Kilworth. A ghastly experiment was carried out in this country some years ago of taking people from fairly poor holdings and placing them on the worst bog in Ireland. That was done to 11 tenants. Then it was discovered and stopped. Unless Kilworth is fairly good quality land my recommendation to the Land Commission will be not to touch it. There is another branch which would be very glad to get it, and that is Forestry.

Mr. Corry

What about the Curragh?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Would Deputies cease interrupting and allow the Minister to conclude?

Mr. Blowick

I cannot understand Deputy Corry getting so hot under the collar in 1956.

Mr. Corry

The Minister could not make me hot under the collar.

Mr. Blowick

Deputy Corry has been here since 1927 and it is only now that he has discovered Kilworth and Kingscommon, Ballyfair and the Curragh and the Remount Farm at Lusk. He has only discovered those after 30 years. For the Deputy's information, these five places rolled into one would only form a very small portion of the annual acquisition activities of the Land Commission. We took over 30,000 acres this year. These five farms would comprise only 2,500 acres all told and that would be only one fifteenth of our total acquisition. They would be useful if they were good, and I will look into them. But I would like Deputy Corry to let me know why it is—he had a Minister of his own Party here for 19 years—he never heard about the State Property Act until now. It is only when he finds himself in Opposition, when he cannot do a whole lot of harm except talk, and finds me here with the responsibility of Minister, that he hands this into my lap. He had four Ministers of his own Party—Deputy Derrig and Deputy Moylan, a Cork man and a neighbour of his own, and a couple of other good Deputies of his own Party Ministers for Land. He could have got them to do what I got our Government to do—pass the State Property Act—to take over these farms and properties and to give powers to the Board of Works to sell coastguard stations and a lot of other buildings and properties which had outlived their usefulness.

Mr. Corry

Did the Minister come in here and listen to the Minister for Finance telling the reasons why the State Lands Act was brought in here and at whose bidding it was brought in?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Order! Deputy Corry may not make another speech on the State Lands Act.

Mr. Blowick

Deputy Fanning raised the question of the one-mile limit. Up to 1948 the limit was two miles, or two and a half miles.

Mr. Fanning

Why was it changed back?

Mr. Blowick

I cut it down deliberately and I told the House on more than one occasion why I did that. The reason was that I found that in most counties in the West and in some of the Midland counties the owners of smallholdings, who had got additions at a considerable distance from the parent holdings, found such additions a great cause of trouble. The father of the present owner of the holding was very glad to get an additional five, six or ten acres, even two miles away. But in the meantime his son, who was going to school at the time, has grown up and when he becomes a young man he finds he has to spend a considerable portion of every day of the year on his bicycle or perhaps on horseback going from the home farm to the addition, bringing water to cattle or bringing fodder, and so on.

The result was that the younger generation were getting very discontented and I deliberately cut down that two-mile limit to one mile. I believe I did the right thing. Deputy Derrig was three years Minister after I was and he did not alter it, and I think he was wise in not altering it. I did that in good faith and I still hold I was right in doing so.

Mr. Fanning

On that point, I think it is the most foolish statement a Minister ever made. A man can easily go to his land on a main road instead of crossing fields.

Mr. Blowick

The question was also raised that local congestion should get first preference. Most Deputies spoke as if the Land Commission brought migrants into farms they were going to divide with some kind of fiendish delight; that they were going to deprive the local congests of land. That is not the case. The Land Commission has very strict instructions to satisfy the local congests before any land is considered for migrants.

Mr. James Tully

That is not being done and the Minister knows it quite well.

Mr. Blowick

I say it is.

Mr. James Tully

I will prove to the Minister that it is not.

Mr. Blowick

Probably where the Deputy and the Land Commission would fall out is that the Deputy might not agree with the choice of applicant; the Land Commission having certain knowledge perhaps not available to the Deputy and myself, say that they will not give land to John or Pat but will give it to Michael. The law of this House says that that is what will happen. It says very clearly that the Minister will have no function whatever in arranging acquisition, resumption or allotment of land or fixing the annuity.

Mr. James Tully

I suggest the Minister should change the inspectors and he will then get a lot more satisfaction.

Mr. Blowick

We have held inquests time and time again. Before I became Minister I thought I had a dozen or more than a dozen such cases where it appeared that the wrong persons had got land but I had to admit after having held my own little private inquiry that the Land Commission inspectors were right and that I had got only half the story from those tenants who had brought it to my notice. That is the truth.

Several Deputies have mentioned the matter of purchase of land on the open market under Section 27 of the 1950 Act. They seemed to be under a misapprehension concerning it. Land bought under this section cannot be used for enlargements. If they look at sub-section (1) of Section 27 they will see:—

"Where—

(a) any interest in land is offered for sale, and

(b) the interest carries the right to vacant possession of the land and,

(c) the Land Commission require the land for provision of new holdings for migrants or to facilitate new arrangement of lands held in rundale or intermixed plots, the Land Commission may purchase such interest for cash."

That section of the 1950 Act allows the Land Commission to buy land in the open market but it allows them to buy it only for two purposes: for migrants or to facilitate the rearrangement of land held in rundale or intermixed plots. In case Deputies might not appreciate that aspect——

Mr. Bartley

Would the Minister answer a question on that point?

Mr. Blowick

I will.

Mr. Bartley

An explanation was given to me during the last fortnight that migrants might not be brought into it unless it is to relieve what is called local congestion. I do not know what this explanation means. Perhaps the Minister could explain it now?

Mr. Blowick

The section lays down clearly that the Land Commission may use it for migrants, a migrant being a person who surrenders his own holding in exchange. The Land Commission can purchase it for this purpose or for the purpose of helping in rearrangement.

Mr. Bartley

Does the Minister say quite positively here to-night that they need not be congests in the immediate vicinity of the holding offered for sale?

Mr. Blowick

That is right.

Mr. Bartley

"Need not be"?

Mr. Blowick

Need not be.

Mr. Bartley

That is in conflict with the explanation given to me a fortnight ago.

Mr. Blowick

They can be 20 miles away from it. We can buy it and if necessary divide it up into one, two, three or more holdings for migrants. That is what the 1950 Act says.

There has been a lot of talk about 1,000 acres and 500 acres. Would the Deputies who know of these farms let me know of them? The Land Commission want to know where these huge ranches are. The Land Commission are now finding it difficult to acquire land, and if Deputies between now and the months of August and September would send me in lists of these farms, which (1) comprise a huge acreage of good land, and (2) are not being properly worked, I would be delighted to hear of them and I will give Deputies my word of honour that I will have them examined.

Mr. J.J. Collins

Some months ago I gave a big list of farms, such as the Minister mentions, at Athlacca, Limerick, and the Minister informed me, in reply to a question, that the Land Commission were not prepared to acquire them at all.

Mr. James Tully

I gave the Minister several lists and I did not get even a civil answer from the Land Commission.

Mr. Blowick

Deputy O'Hara mentioned the Dickens estate. This estate is composed of 396 holdings, all small, and the majority in rundale. If 50 per cent. of the tenants could be got to migrate it would not be possible even then to provide economic holdings for the remainder. That gives Deputies some idea of the problem there. It is engaging the attention of the Land Commission. If 50 per cent. of the tenants would migrate it would not be considered an insuperable task.

Mr. Calleary

Will some of those tenants not migrate?

Mr. Blowick

They are very slow to say "Yes".

Mr. Calleary

I sent eight or ten names to the Department.

Mr. Blowick

I gave a dozen names to the Department myself and when the inspector came out they changed their minds.

Mr. Calleary

Could the Minister not deal with the rundale question?

Mr. Blowick

You cannot do it without the consent of the tenants. I would be only too happy to deal with it as soon as possible, if the tenants would co-operate. The tenants there all have small scattered holdings. They made good use of the assistance available to them under the various Housing Acts. They are mostly migratory workers, and perhaps they are afraid of embarking on new holdings. If these words of mine reach the Press and catch their eye, I would assure them that, if they choose to migrate, they will never regret it. They would be much better off. We will get holdings for them within their own county or, at least, within their own province, and we will not let them "invade" Deputy Tully's county unless they wish to do so. I want to assure them that they will not be making any mistake if they take their courage in both hands and accept the holdings that the Land Commission offer them. There is more migration within the congested counties than there is to Meath——

Mr. James Tully

That is not what the Census said.

Mr. Blowick

Deputy O'Hara mentioned one man who got land on three different occasions. I shall look into that because it does seem a bit queer. Deputy Jack Flynn complains that Kerry is neglected. He and Deputy Maguire are the only two Deputies who left the Fianna Fáil Party and came back again——

Mr. J.J. Collins

That is not a fair remark.

Mr. Blowick

All right, but is it not equally unfair of them to say that the whole work of the Land Commission is devoted to Mayo? The figures will show that there is a fair amount of Land Commission activity in practically every county.

Mr. J.J. Collins

The Minister will have no Party at all soon.

Mr. Blowick

I say this for Deputy Flynn's benefit: more work could, and should, have been done in the past in Donegal, Sligo, Leitrim, Mayo, Galway, Clare and Kerry. If most of the Land Commission work is going on to-day in these counties it is only just and right. If more work had been done in them in the past there would not be so much for me to do now. I think I have good news for Deputies on all sides of the House when I tell them that the unvested holdings requiring rearrangement at the moment amount to approximately 9,000 and the unvested holdings that are so small that they are entitled to additions amount to about another 9,000. In view of these figures the end of the Land Commission work may be in sight.

When I give these figures I think it is only fair to say that, in the past, certain congested townlands and estates were vested without any rearrangement. This was done in the past, how long ago I do not know. I know that these places have been vested and that that fact has had the effect of putting them far back in the priority list. These cases will have to be dealt with some day and I know that the Land Commission has no intention of by-passing them altogether.

Deputies raised the question of land being held on hands for a long time. I know that land is sometimes kept a long time on hands but I want to ask Deputies if they want to have the Land Commission so stocked with outdoor inspectors that when possession is taken of a farm these men are waiting on the ditch to pounce in and divide it. I want to make it clear that there is no great hardship being done to the tenants who would get these lands because the small tenants get first preference in the grazing and in the use of these lands.

Mr. Fanning

There is hardship on the land itself.

Mr. Blowick

There is no hardship on the land. Deputy Moylan advocated the setting up of 60, or 80, or 100 acre holdings. He thinks that the Land Commission is not aiding agricultural production. I cannot agree with that. Anybody who travels through Meath or Kildare knows that the production of land which has been divided in these counties must have been doubled, if not trebled. Unfortunately we have no means of measuring agricultural production except through the volume or value of our agricultural exports. However, our standard of living has increased to such an extent that most of the increase in our agricultural production is being consumed by our own people at home.

Several Deputies paid tribute to the manner in which subdivision is being dealt with at the present time. It is being dealt with very rapidly and I am glad of that fact. Deputy Kennedy raised some question of a father and son who got land in the Adamson estate. I will look into that question and see if there is any substance in it. Land is not so plentiful that we could afford to divide it in that way or to divide it into farms of 60, 80 or 100 acres although that is what I myself would like to do.

Mr. James Tully

You gave a farm of 170 acres to three brothers who came up to Meath from County Kerry.

Mr. Blowick

I did, when they gave up 300 acres of land in the Dingle Peninsula that we needed very badly for the relief of congestion down there.

A number of Deputies raised the point here about migrants and the eyes nearly dropped out of their heads when they described how a migrant could buy a holding of land situated beside him. What is this country coming to? If these men have struggled for generations on poor holdings in the West of Ireland and if they saved what they earned, over and above their requirements, and if they have enough to buy a second holding of land, what is wrong with that? I wish we had more of that type of men in the country. I think it was Deputy Rooney who said some of the migrants from the West were not using their land properly. I do not know a single one of them that is doing that. The duty is imposed on the Land Commission to ensure that when they select migrants or other allottees for land they must be satisfied that they are the people most likely to work it to the best advantage. That duty imposes a pretty strict obligation on the Land Commission to see that they do not give land to the duds.

Mr. James Tully

What if they buy a farm of land right after they come up?

Mr. Blowick

Let us say that John Murphy is a migrant. It is not just to give him a gift at the expense of the State that the Land Commission give him his holding. It is because they want the holding that he leaves behind him that he is migrated. We want that holding to relieve congestion in the area that he is leaving. It does not matter if he has won the sweepstake prize of £50,000; it is the holding that he leaves behind him that is wanted. By all the talk there has been here it would look as if Deputies would seek to divert the Land Commission from the work this House meant it to do, which is to settle the land question on a national scale, into a kind of Santa Claus giving out parcels of land. That is not the position at all. Every migrant who gets a holding gives up another valuable holding in exchange for it to the Land Commission in order to relieve congestion in the townland he leaves. A man who does not do that will not be allowed to become a migrant.

Mr. McQuillan

What about the man who buys a farm of 300 acres?

Mr. Blowick

The Deputy has been trying to shackle the Land Commission in this House. I have no notion of following the line that he laid down or of replying to the wild trash that he comes in here and talks on every occasion.

Mr. Calleary

I do not see another member of the Coalition Government on the Front Benches.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy can ask a question when the Minister has finished.

Mr. Blowick

The whole question of congestion is one for which every Irish Government is responsible. That congestion was created in a very quick time in the past with a terrific amount of bloodshed. There is now no method of undoing it except by adopting the same totalitarian methods that were used to create it.

Mr. Fanning

Why did you not preach that when you were a Deputy over here?

Mr. Blowick

Deputy Fanning should keep quiet on this matter.

Mr. Fanning

Why did the Minister not preach that when he was a private Deputy?

Mr. Blowick

Will Deputy Fanning keep quiet? He spoke and I did not interrupt him.

Mr. Fanning

Why did the Minister not preach when he was a private Deputy what he is preaching now? At that time, the Minister could not move half fast enough.

Mr. Blowick

If the Deputy can point out any inconsistency or any line of policy that I advocated when I was a Deputy that I am not following now, I would be glad to hear it. If the Deputy goes down to the Library, studies what I have said and finds any inconsistency or finds that I asked Deputy Moylan or Deputy Derrig, when they were here as Ministers, to do something that I am not prepared to do now myself, I would be glad to hear it.

Mr. Fanning

You did.

Mr Donnellan

For instance?

Mr. Blowick

Several Deputies asked what is the amount of land still available. That is a question that cannot be answered, for the reason, as I have said on previous occasions in this House, that a farm of land that is available now might not be available in a year's time; land that is being well worked now and which the Land Commission cannot touch may become available in a year's time. The truth of the matter is that the pool of available land, as we call it, fluctuates with such rapidity that any attempt at a figure would be a mere guess, and would probably be misleading rather than anything else.

It was suggested that the Old I.R.A. should get preference. Deputy Tully of Meath mentioned that. Such is the case. The Old I.R.A. do get preference.

Mr. James Tully

What preference do they get? They get no preference in Meath. Indeed they do not.

Mr. Fanning

What is left they get.

Mr. Blowick

Do you want inspectors to go around the area and give them undue preference? They are given first consideration. The inspectors' instructions are to that effect and they follow them out.

Mr. James Tully

Are they likely to get a farm when land is being divided?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Order!

Mr. Blowick

The Deputy also mentioned that direct labour should be employed where possible. The trouble is that we are short-handed, particularly in the Deputy's constituency both in the case of direct labour and contracts. Contractors sometimes find difficulty in getting sufficient labour.

Mr. James Tully

I will make ten units available for the Minister tomorrow if he wants them.

Mr. Blowick

I would be glad to know of it. Deputy Palmer, Deputy Brennan and Deputy Esmonde mentioned that the letters from the Land Commission should be more explicit. They object to the acknowledgment they get that their letter has reached the Department. I do not know what is wrong about that. It is only courtesy that an acknowledgment would go out to whoever sends a letter to the Department. I will have that question examined. If Deputies do not like the little folder they get, I will have the matter examined and see if I can send out one more embellished, with the Land Commission coat of arms on the top, if they want that.

Mr. J.J. Collins

In fairness to the Minister, I would say that is always the practice now.

Mr. Blowick

Complaints are also made that from time to time the Land Commission does not reply. I did not get replies myself when I was a Deputy; I want to assure Deputies that I do not get replies now that I am a Minister and perhaps I should say why. The majority of letters coming from Deputies, Senators and members of local authorities are letters recommending some constituent of theirs for an allotment of land on a particular estate. All these representations from Deputies go on the particular file and the inspector who investigates the congestion in the area looks into every one of them. I want to assure the House of that. Once again, it may be a year or two or three years before the particular farm is divided. What does a Deputy who writes in and says: "I recommend Pat Burke of such a place for an allotment on X estate when it is being divided" want the Land Commission to do? Does he want the Land Commission to write back a letter to, say, Deputy Corry, Deputy Fanning or Deputy Collins saying: "Yes, we will give Pat Burke land when the estate is being divided, but we will not be dividing it for three years. We will give him an allotment whether he is dead or alive on that date"? Deputies who write in get back a letter saying that the representations on behalf of So-and-So have been received. That is as far as the Land Commission could go

I should again remind Deputies that this House has set up the Land Commission as a court and, having done that, they say, "We have set up the Land Commission; no T.D. or even the Minister, will be able to use influence with them and woe betide anybody who tries to use influence with them for this that or the other." Having done that and having put them on that pedestal, they start making a cockshot of them from the day they put them up. That is all wrong. If we have the Land Commission as a court they are entitled to the respect that their status gives them. They are entitled to that respect the same as any of the other courts—the District Court, the Circuit Court, the High Court and the Supreme Court. They are a court, just as the Revenue Commissioners are a court and just like many other bodies that have judicial status in the State. Deputies should give that court the respect that is due to it.

It does not encourage Land Commission inspectors or the commissioners to find that, having been given a responsible job of work to do by this House, we sit down here for two or three days each year, when the Estimate is being debated, and on many other days put down parliamentary questions, abuse them and say they are doing this and that and the other, that they are partial and open to political pull, religious pull and God knows what. That is not a decent way to carry on. We will get much better results from them if we treat them in the way they should be treated.

Mr. Derrig

I hope the Minister always gives the good example and that Deputies will follow it.

Mr. Fanning

Why does the Minister not practise what he preaches?

Mr. Blowick

When the Deputy has a cast iron case, this is the place in which to thresh it out and if he knows something has gone wrong, that either the Land Commission or some of their servants have violated either the policy of the Government or the law that this House makes, it is the duty of that particular Deputy to thresh it out here in full, if he decides that that is the best course and, if not, it is his duty to bring it to the notice of the Minister.

Mr. McQuillan

May I ask the Minister a question? Leaving out the personalities that the Minister seems to be inclined to bring in, does the Minister consider, in view of the charge laid upon the Land Commission to solve congestion, that there should be a limit or a ceiling imposed on the amount of land left in the hands of any individual in this country?

Mr. Blowick

If the Deputy has a policy on that particular point, let him state it.

Mr. McQuillan

Has the Minister a policy? I have a policy and I stated it in this house. Has the Minister a policy?

Mr. Blowick

Then let that do. Is that not good enough for you?

Mr. McQuillan

Will the Minister answer the question?

Mr. Blowick

No, I will not. I have not the least intention of answering it.

Mr. McQuillan

You have not the guts.

Mr. Blowick

I will answer no question of the Deputy's because it is a waste of time and would be demeaning—except the questions he puts down in the ordinary way as parliamentary questions. I will give him any information on them that it is in my power to give.

Mr. McQuillan

I will put a parliamentary question to the Minister but I would like to know, does he believe that a man with 300 acres in a congested county should be allowed to buy a migrant's holding within four miles of the particular holding that he has?

Mr. Blowick

That is a hypothetical question.

Mr. McQuillan

It has happened; the Minister knows perfectly well.

Mr. Blowick

Give me the details.

Mr. McQuillan

The Minister knows them. They are known in his Department.

Mr. Fanning

May I ask a question? The Minister referred to the making of roads. He said that they made fairly good roads but that people are using lorries, tractors and everything else on those roads. When he was dividing land did he think that the people would travel on bicycles or saddle horses? Are they not going to increase production?

Mr. Blowick

That is begging the question.

Mr. Fanning

If they are to increase tillage and production they must use lorries and other heavy vehicles.

Mr. Blowick

What I said was that the Land Commission, when they divide land or develop bog, make good roads but I made it perfectly clear that, the Land Commission having done so and having handed them over to the tenants, it is the duty of the tenants and the public representatives to keep the roads in repair. The House is not giving me money for the repair of roads in this Vote. When we have not the money to do it, how do Deputies expect me to do it? Even if the House gave the money, it would be bad policy to have a fourth road authority in this country to repair roads.

Mr. Fanning

I should like——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Fanning has already asked his question. He cannot carry on the debate in this fashion any further.

Mr. Calleary

The Minister ought to resign having regard to the fact that he has not the confidence of the Government. There was no member of Fine Gael — the largest Party in the Coalition—present.

Mr. Donnellan

The Deputy has only come in.

Mr. Blowick

If the Deputy was not in the House, I should like to remind him that it is not customary for a Minister to send for Deputies so that they may hear him.

Mr. J. Brennan

I wanted to ask a question.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I am now putting the question. Deputies had ample time to say whatever they wanted to say. Deputy Brennan will resume his seat.

Mr. J. Brennan

I was patient during the Minister's speech. Now I want to put a few pertinent questions.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy will resume his seat. He has already spoken at length.

Mr. J. Brennan

He has not.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy had ample opportunity to do so.

Mr. J. Flynn

I want to ask a question.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair is now putting the question.

Vote put and agreed to.