The debate on these Estimates has proceeded very much on the same lines as the debate on the recent Supplementary Estimate. I am frankly disappointed at the criticism of these Estimates. I thought that some practical, constructive proposals would come from some of the economists in the House as to how we could reduce the expenditure on the Land Commission and how we could render the Land Commission more efficient. Deputy Morrissey was perfectly right, and his statement was perfectly justified, that the criticisms of these Estimates in other years were far more intelligent than the criticism of this one has been. Many Deputies seem to be unable to distinguish between tenanted land and untenanted land. Other Deputies seemed to be unable to distinguish between annuities and the price paid for land to landlords. Other Deputies kept harping back to the wonderful progress made in distributing land during the former régime. I have given figures already showing quite clearly that we are acquiring and distributing land at least three times as fast to-day as it was acquired and distributed under the former régime. Perhaps on this occasion I could supplement these figures somewhat and give them in greater detail.
The figures which I propose to give are a comparison of the rate of progress prior to and subsequent to the 31st March, 1923, the date on which the Land Commission was transferred to the Free State Government. First I will give the figures relating to the vesting of holdings in purchasers under the 1903 and 1909 Acts. During the twenty years from 1903 to 1923 the Land Commission and the Estates Commissioners vested 5,590,582 acres in 152,771, purchasing tenants in respect of direct sales between landlord and tenant, say an average per annum of 280,000 acres and of 7,640 holdings. In respect of the re-sale of estates under the same Acts purchased by the Estates Commissioners and the Congested Districts Board during the same twenty years' period, the Land Commission vested 1,406,705 acres in 43,821 purchasers, say an average per annum of 70,335 acres and 2,190 purchasers. In comparison with these figures, in respect of direct sales alone since 1923. the present Land Commission has vested nearly all the holdings—I am speaking now of direct sales only— amounting to 14,255 in respect of which purchase agreements were lodged and pending under the Land Acts of 1903 and 1909 in the Free State, comprising an area of over 431,000 acres, the average rate of vesting per annum during the three years 1923-26, in which the bulk of the holdings were vested, having been over 125,000 acres and 4,100 holdings. Most of these pending cases were residues of estates held over on account of exceptional difficulties, difficulties which I indicated in my concluding statement on the Supplementary Estimate, difficulties relating to occupancy, difficulties relating to boundary disputes, to turbary, to drainage maintenance rates, and difficulties of various other kinds. These were the types of estates that we had to deal with between the years 1923 and 1926, and, as I say, we have succeeded in surmounting our difficulties in connection with these estates and vesting nearly all the holdings—14,225— in respect of which purchase agreements had been signed. Considering the extraordinary difficulties which some of these estates presented—legal difficulties mainly—I think that the rate of progress in that respect alone has been considerably greater than the rate of progress during any period under the former régime.
In respect of re-sale since 1923 of estates purchased by the Land Commission and the Congested Districts Board under the 1903 and 1909 Acts, the present Land Commission vested in the Free State over 510,000 acres in 14,600 purchasers—that is, an average per annum of 102,000 acres and 2,920 purchasers. That is considerably above the average of the years from 1903 to 1923—it is practically double the average of that period. So much for the rate at which vesting has been carried on. I will now give some detailed figures regarding the division of untenanted land, leaving out of account altogether the division of untenanted land on the Congested Districts Board's estates, both before and after the year 1923, and comparing the division of untenanted land by the Estates Commissioners with the present Land Commission. The total area of untenanted land divided by the Estates Commissioners during the years from 1903 to 1923 was 336,359 acres amongst 14,958 allottees; say an average per annum of 16,818 acres and 750 allottees. In addition to dividing 22,000 acres since 1923 on estates purchased by the Estates Commissioners under the Land Act of 1903, the Land Commission have divided over 141,000 acres of untenanted land amongst 6,490 allottees. Considering that the Land Commission only began this distribution of land in the year 1925, the average per annum under the 1923 Act alone works out at over 45,000 acres and 2,100 allottees, as compared with 16,000 acres and 750 allottees for the earlier period. In fact, during the past year the Land Commission have divided over 60,000 acres acquired under the 1923 Act alone, which is considerably more than the Estates Commissioners divided in any one year.
As regards untenanted land on the Congested Districts Board's estates, as Deputies, particularly those from Western constituencies, know, the Congested Districts Board was very active, especially after the passing of the 1909 Act, in acquiring land in the congested areas. As regards untenanted land on the Congested Districts Board's estates, up to the transfer of the Board to the Land Commission in 1923, they had divided 413,894 acres in a period of over thirty years. You must recollect that the Board first acquired land in 1891 out of their own funds. This was an average annual distribution of 14,000 acres. Since 1923 the Land Commission have divided 106,000 acres of untenanted land on these Congested Districts Board's estates; say an average annual division of 21,000 acres, showing clearly that the rate of progress has been very much greater since the transfer of the Congested Districts Board to the Land Commission.
I think that these figures should convince Deputies that land acquisition and land distribution is proceeding much more rapidly to-day than it proceeded under the former régime. I stated in the discussion on the Supplementary Estimate that land acquisition and land distribution is proceeding at least three times faster to-day than it proceeded under the former régime, and I can reiterate that statement on this occasion.
Another grievance that many Deputies seem to be labouring under was with regard to the delay in the vesting of estates, not only the vesting of estates acquired under the 1923 Act, but some Deputies also laboured the fact that there was also delay in the vesting of estates acquired under earlier Acts—the Acts of 1903 and 1909. As regards the delay in vesting holdings in tenant purchasers, Deputies should remember that vesting is, after all, a legal operation and that legal requirements have to be complied with before such vesting can be completed. These legal difficulties are very elaborate and intricate, and they inevitably take time. Matters pertaining to rights of way, to drainage rates, to title and occupancy, to turbary rights and to the innumerable other things that are inseparable from the acquisition of land, have got to be settled and disposed of according to certain legal processes before the holdings can be finally vested in the tenants. All these matters inevitably take time and inevitably cause delay.
In connection with certain estates acquired by the Congested Districts Board and the Estates Commissioners, the vesting of holdings was delayed until the Congested Districts Board, or the Estates Commissioners, as the case might be, might have an opportunity of acquiring additional land for the purpose of carrying out a scheme of re-arrangement and consolidation for whole townlands. Many estates were held over by the Congested Districts Board in order that they might have an opportunity later of acquiring additional land so that such a scheme of consolidation and re-arrangement might be carried out. In other cases tenants refused to sign the final purchase agreements, and Deputies who were in the Dáil at the passing of the 1927 Act will remember that a special section had to be introduced into that Act in order that that difficulty might be got over— Section 53, I think. That section provides that even if these tenants have not actually signed purchase agreements the holdings will be still vested in them, according to the legal procedure laid down in that section.
I stated yesterday, in introducing this Estimate, that no less than 15,000 of these holdings—that is, holdings under the 1903 and the 1909 Acts, representing in purchase money over £3,000,000—have been vested on re-sale since the Land Commission was transferred to the Free State Government, and, in addition to that, 14,250 holdings were also vested in that period in respect of direct sales pending under the Acts of 1903 and 1909 at the date of such transfer. Great care must be exercised in seeing that the vestings are accurately completed. Otherwise the possibilities of future litigation might be vested with the lands. If vesting is not carried out satisfactorily, if certain legal difficulties are overlooked, no matter how trifling they may be, it might lead to endless litigation and have the effect of piling a tremendous amount of costs on the unfortunate tenants. I think we can claim that in this country we have probably as perfect a system of land registration as there is to be found in any other country in the world. After all, even assuming that slight delays have occurred, even assuming that tenants have been deprived for a few years of that little additional relief which they will get when the holdings are vested in them, they are compensated in the end by the knowledge of the fact that when the holdings are finally vested in them their title is indisputable, that it can never be questioned at any time subsequently. On account of the delicate nature of the legal processes involved in this matter, it is not a wise or a sound policy to hasten this work unduly. You must allow the legal men to proceed cautiously and carefully, while striving to attain, at the same time, as great a degree of celerity as possible in carrying the business through.
A great deal has been made from time to time of the delay on the question of vesting. Perhaps I had better explain briefly the different stages that have to be gone through before land is finally vested in tenants, under the Land Act of 1923. Before the appointed day, or the vesting date—I am dealing now with the 1923 Act—can be fixed the following are the steps that have to be taken: First of all, there is the statutory obligation on the landlord, or the owner of land, to lodge what is legally called the schedule of particulars of the holdings, with maps and other necessary documents. The lands are then subsequently visited by a surveyor to check boundaries and to deal with questions of occupancy, turbary, drainage maintenance rates, and innumerable other things. When the surveyor's report is received, it has got to be examined, and any difficulties, or any queries arising from the examination of that report, have got to be submitted to the owner's solicitors. The next step is the publication of a provisional list of lands, notifying the public in general that these lands are about to be acquired and will be vested in the Land Commission on the appointed day. The provisional list, of course, is served on all interested parties. Then a certain statutory period is allowed for the lodgment of objections. Subsequently, if such objections are lodged, they have got to be considered and disposed of in a judicial way by the Commissioners.
Subsequently the estate has to be visited by an inspector and his attention directed to the various matters on which he is to report. He has to value the land for the purpose of fixing the standard annuities, to report on the particular holdings that have to be retained, the number of sub-tenancies on the estate, joint tenancies, turbaries, sea-weed, grazing rights mineral and mining rights, etc. The inspector has to report on all these matters. When his report is submitted it is examined, and it usually happens that matters arising out of it have to be notified to the owners and the solicitors concerned. Matters requiring the Commissioners' ruling have to be submitted for their attention. The next stage is that certain statutory notices prescribed by the Act have to be served on interested parties, in the case of retained holdings for the fixation of standard purchase annuities, and, in the case of nonjudicial holdings, of joint tenancies, sub-tenancies and so on.
Then offers in respect of any fisheries have to be prepared. The reservation of any ancient monuments that may exist on an estate have to be considered. In cases of that kind, the Land Commission have to communicate with the Board of Works, and sometimes with the county councils, as well as to serve notices on the other parties concerned. I there are any foreshore matters involved, the Land Commission have to get into communication with the Minister for Industry and Commerce who is responsible for looking after such rights. The next stage is that when portion of the money is retained in the form of a fund for the future upkeep of sea or tidal embankments, the examiners of title have to be notified, so that matters of that kind may come before the Judicial Commissioner in Court who will then deal with the distribution of the purchase money. He will see that a certain sum of money out of the purchase price is set aside for the purpose of maintaining embankments. These are matters that have to be determined in a judicial way.
The last stage is the preparation of the final list. It has to be drafted and calculations made as to the purchase money, including any compounded arrears of rent. Deputies will see, therefore, that before a holding can be finally vested in a tenant it has to go through several stages. I have indicated briefly in this memorandum the stages which a holding on an estate has to go through before a vesting can take place under the 1923 Act. I submit that all these stages are absolutely essential and necessary. No matter how minute the examination of a stage may be, you cannot possibly afford to neglect one of them. Most of them are statutory, and if you want to give a tenant a safe and secure title in his holding no simple detail can possibly be overlooked.
When the Supplementary Estimate was under discussion I stated that the price at which we were acquiring land to-day was smaller than the price paid for land under either the 1903 or 1909 Acts. I gave the figures in my concluding statement on that occasion, but notwithstanding that, many Deputies in the course of this debate yesterday and to-day have alluded to the fact that we are paying a higher price for land to-day than was paid under the earlier Acts. I propose to repeat the figures I gave when the Supplementary Estimate was under discussion. Under the 1903 Act the average price paid per acre was 11.4 pounds; under the 1909 Act the price was 16.2 pounds and under the 1923 Act the average price paid per acre was 10.3 pounds These figures show conclusively that we are buying land to-day cheaper than it was bought under any of the earlier Acts.
