Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 10 Dec 1931

Vol. 40 No. 22

In Committee on Finance. - Vote 55.—Land Commission

Mr. Blythe

I move:—

Go ndeontar suim bhreise ná raghaidh thar £118,708 chun íoctha an Mhuirir a thiocfaidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh lá de Mhárta, 1932, chun Tuarastail agus Costaisí Oifig Choimisiún Talmhan na hEireann (44 agus 45 Vict., c. 49, a. 46, agus c. 71, a 4; 48 agus 49 Vict., c. 73, a. 17, 18 agus 20; 53 agus 54 Vict., c. 49, a. 2; 54 agus 55 Vict., c. 48; 3 Edw. 7, c. 57; 7 Edw. 7, c. 38 agus c. 56; 9 Edw. 7, c. 42; Uimh. 27 agus Uimh. 42 de 1923, Uimh. 25 de 1925, Uimh. 11 de 1926, Uimh. 19 de 1927, agus Uimh. 31 agus Uimh. 41 de 1929).

That a supplementary sum not exceeding £118,708 be granted to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1932, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Irish Land Commission (44 and 45 Vict., c. 49, s. 46, and c. 71, s. 4; 48 and 49 Vict., c. 73, ss. 17, 18 and 20; 53 and 54 Vict., c. 49, s. 2; 54 and 55 Vict., c. 48; 3 Edw. 7, c. 37; 7 Edw. 7, c. 38, and c. 56; 9 Edw. 7, c. 42; Nos. 27 and 42 of 1923, 25 of 1925, 11 of 1926, 19 of 1927, and 31 and 41 of 1929).

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Lands and Fisheries (Mr. Roddy)

Under sub-head H there is an amount of £36,705 asked for in order to provide interest and sinking fund on the bonds issued in respect of the State contribution to the purchase price and also in respect of the contribution to the Costs Fund. In the Estimate last year I asked for a sum of £34,000 in order to cover the interest and sinking fund on the land bonds issued in respect of this contribution. Since the passing of the Act of 1931 £14,000,000 worth of land bonds have been issued, and naturally the figure asked for in the Estimate this year has been increased considerably in consequence. The additional sum of £36,705 now asked for is intended to cover additional amount.

Sub-head I—Improvement of Estates —is a token Vote for £10. Under the Land Act of 1931 the Land Commission was given certain additional powers to spend money; under Section 38 of that Act rights of way can be provided to turbary areas and turbary plots, and the section gives us power to pay the expenses of migrants from various parts of the country. I do not anticipate that any additional expenditure will be incurred in this financial year in connection with the administration of these particular sections, but in order to keep ourselves right legally with the Accountant and with the Comptroller and Auditor-General I have been advised that it is necessary to obtain a token vote of £10 additional.

Sub-head P is for £79,403 for advances in respect of additional sums payable by purchasers. This is intended to cover the period of two months between the gale day and the dividend day. Under the Act of 1931 the payment of that sum has been extended over a period of three years. In other words, it has been extended over six half-yearly instalments. Hitherto it was the practice of the Land Commission to collect that in one instalment, but I felt when the Act of 1931 was being passed that it would be unfair to ask the tenant to pay the whole amount in one instalment. For that reason it was spread over six half-yearly instalments. This money will be fully recouped at the end of the three years period.

Sub-head O is for a sum of £2,000 for payment under various sections of the Land Act of 1931. This is a purely approximate Estimate. No expenditure has so far been incurred under any of these sections, and it is doubtful if any will be incurred before the end of the financial year. However, in order to provide against such an eventuality I am asking for this sum.

Sub-head R is £500 for the maintenance of embankments and other works. That is the provision of a capital sum to cover certain works of repair and maintenance in various parts of the country That amount will also be returned to the State in the form of annuities to be fixed on the tenants who will benefit by improvements to be carried out by the Land Commission.

Mr. Derrig

I do not think there is very much to be said on this Estimate. The additional sums required seem to arise from the operation of the Land Commission in connection with the recent Land Act. It seems to be necessary to pass these moneys. Sub-head H is well understood by everybody. It is in connection with the costs that have to be paid on estates. The only question that seems to arise is whether the Land Commission have in sight the end of this paying out to a point, and whether the whole transactions are likely to be completed in the near future.

I think that is one question that arises or whether we will later on be presented with further supplementary estimates. Can we take it from the Parliamentary Secretary that this Estimate will complete the financial responsibility of the State in connection with operations under that Act?

With regard to sub-head I, Improvement of Estates, is it proposed to make any segregation between the amounts that will be allocated for special works under recent Land Acts, such as were mentioned by the Parliamentary Secretary, turbary and migrants' expenses, or will the whole thing simply appear under one sub-head? The general question of the improvement of estates is one of those matters that can be discussed on this Estimate. I do not propose to go into it except to say that we are not satisfied at all that sufficient work is being done, particularly in counties like Kildare, Tipperary and Meath, the chief ranching counties, where it is known that large areas of ranch land have been the subject of agitation for many years and where there is urgent need for a forward policy. It seems to me that the Land Commission are not doing what they should have done at all in dividing this land. I quite realise that in the appropriation of money the congested districts must have first consideration, but it seems extraordinary if the Land Commission is going to allow these huge ranches to continue solely, as I have often stated, for the production of beef.

With respect to sub-heads P.Q. and R. these are new sub-heads which have not appeared before in the Land Commission Vote. Before voting them, I am sure the Dáil would like to know whether these sub-heads are likely to occur in future years or whether they are simply temporary. The Parliamentary Secretary has assured us that under sub-head P the amount of almost £80,000 which it is proposed to vote will be repaid in half-yearly instalments. In connection with this whole question of the collection of arrears and of unexpected sums, while they are legally due by the tenants, the tenants are not very well acquainted with the law, and they naturally cannot be expected to have foreseen that under the different Acts they would have to pay these sums, sums both of this kind and the compounded arrears of rent. I think that in asking the tenants to pay up these additional sums the Land Commission should exercise every leniency. It is a pity, I think, in connection with the sum payable under this particular section that the Parliamentary Secretary would not take the same powers for the compounded arrears of rent. Then, as regards sub-head Q, it seems to be necessary to meet certain proceedings which are being dismissed or where the purchase prices are redeemed.

Sub-head R naturally raises the question of embankments. Are we to take it that £500 is to be taken as the sum that the Land Commission is really thinking of as sufficient to deal with the question of embankments? As the Parliamentary Secretary knows, in my own constituency there is a single case where I feel quite certain £500 would not cover the expenditure that is necessary. In fact, it is doubtful, as he himself knows, if anything can be done with the embankments in this particular case. If it simply means providing money in order to fulfil certain statutory obligations, or to place certain sums at the disposal of the Public Trustee to enable him to carry out certain statutory obligations, if that is why £500 is voted, we can understand it, but I think the Parliamentary Secretary might take the opportunity to let the House know when and how soon he intends to take steps to deal with this whole question of embankments and lands rendered derelict by flooding.

Mr. Goulding

Are we to understand that this money to be spent on embankments has to be borne by the tenants? I was under the impression that where formerly an embankment was maintained by the landlord the Land Commission would undertake the maintenance of it and debit the State with the cost. From what the Parliamentary Secretary stated, it would seem that the cost of maintaining embankments is to be passed on to the tenants and added to the annuities.

Mr. Harris

With regard to the improvement of estates, I understand that whatever is advanced to tenants who are allotted land is added on afterwards to their annuities. I consider that very unfair, because most of those ranches which are being divided at present and which have been used for grazing for the past seventy or eighty years have deteriorated to a very considerable extent. In fact, they have gone wild. I know many ranches that have been divided, and before the land is of any use to the tenant, if he intends to cultivate it, he has to clear the hedges and trees that have grown over the land. In those big tracts of land also drains have been allowed to fill up, or they have been walked in by cattle. As far as I have seen, there has been no improvement in the way of drainage, so that even if money is advanced to the tenant who receives an allotment of land, I think it is very unfair that he has to pay for the neglect of past generations. The tenants have to clear watercourses and ditches and re-make the whole place. It is a terrible handicap when we consider that even farmers who have kept their land up to date for generations past, and kept their hedges trimmed, are unable to do it now. These farmers are unable to keep it in that condition now, and how are people who have lately received their land from the Land Commission able to do it? It is impossible for them to do so. I think they cannot carry on under these conditions. It is too much for them, along with the ordinary annuity, to bear the burden of these improvements. I think the Government should put the land into condition for them before putting them there, so that they will be able to carry on.

Mr. Gorey

I would like to know if the Parliamentary Secretary thinks he is getting a proper service from those responsible for this maintenance, and particularly those engaged on the engineering side. It is a very poor tribute to the capacity of our engineers if breaches have occurred in the embankments that were originally made, and it is a very poor tribute to our capacity to do things here if these breaches cannot be re-made. It is a confession that we are a thousand years behind any other country in dealing with this question of embankments. It is not a tribute to our engineering staffs or a tribute to the assistance which the Parliamentary Secretary is getting from those who are entrusted with that duty. There may be other circumstances, of course, of which I am unaware, but the tide is at the very same level at which it was several years ago, and the level of the land has not gone down. I cannot see why as good a job cannot be done to-day as formerly.

Mr. Fahy

The Parliamentary Secretary will correct me if I am wrong in assuming that such embankments as the Shannon embankment would come under this Vote.

Mr. Roddy

Oh, no.

Mr. Fahy

I was thinking of the plight of those tenants whose land has been flooded around the Banagher, Portumna and Clonfert areas recently.

Mr. Hogan

I am not thinking about embankments on the Shannon, but of the embankments on a small river— the lands adjoining which have been flooded for seven or eight months of the year and in the case of which representations have been made to the Land Commission repeatedly. The Land Commission have adopted the easygoing attitude of ignoring these representations, and their only action seems to be to send communications asking for the annuities. I know this place. It is practically a sea. You could scarcely walk there. There is one tullachan, as we call it, one elevation in which you could probably build a house, but the rest is practically a sea. In the case of the farms there, applications for the rates and annuities come regularly. In the matter of other improvements, I have drawn attention on several occasions to some of the roads which are in such a condition that people, in order to negotiate them, have to put on rubber boots. The Land Commission has also ignored that matter. These are a few of the things that I think ought to be raised on an estimate of this kind.

I wish also to refer to the habit of the Land Commission of allowing people to come in and buy a portion of an estate. An estate is not in commission, perhaps, for a period. Somebody comes along and buys a large portion of it from the landlord, such a person happening to have a couple of thousand pounds. Or two or three people happen to buy a large portion of it. The Land Commission, in order to make things easy for themselves, do not proceed to acquire the portion which has been bought, but they proceed to buy the worst portion for division amongst uneconomic holders. The best portion is assuredly bought by the two or three people who come in and purchase for a couple of thousand pounds, and the worst portion is left for the uneconomic holders. I have in my mind two or three cases, and I cannot induce the Land Commission to take any steps in the matter. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will take some cognisance of these grievances and make some attempt in the near future to redress them.

Mr. Clery

With reference to the amount in the Estimate for the improvement of estates, I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to give us some definition of what the improvement of estates means exactly. I think that the figures for the past few years show that the amount that has been voted for the improvement of estates has been, to a certain extent, considerable. Could the Parliamentary Secretary give us any outline of the work that has been done in any general way in that respect? Can he claim that there has been a full return for the amount of money that has been spent? I fear that in cases where improvements of estates have been carried out by the Land Commission that the schemes have been gone on with in a more or less haphazard way, and that no results have been achieved worth talking about. I think that the methods employed years ago by the Congested Districts Board were very much more complete and better than the methods employed by the Land Commission. When the Congested Districts Board took over ranches, for instance, there was a great deal of money expended on new roads, on drainage and fencing, and even small plantations and shelter belts used to be planted by the Congested Districts Board. No scheme of that kind has been carried out by the Land Commission on estates which they have recently taken over. The estates that have been taken over were more or less in a derelict condition, and the tenants in many instances have had to make the fences themselves, and even drainage work had to be carried out by the tenants. I should like that an explanation of that method and of the charges that are being made for lands should be given by the Parliamentary Secretary.

Mr. Roddy

To what charges does the Deputy refer?

Mr. Clery

The amount of rent levied on the land. To my mind the amount of the rent fixed on the lands nowadays is greater than the rent that used to be fixed by the Congested Districts Board for small holdings on estates, and in addition works of improvement used to be carried out by the Congested Districts Board at their own expense, whereas in the present cases improvements have been carried out by the tenants. Is no allowance made for the work of the tenant in making roads and doing drainage work? I think there is a lapse there and that the Land Commission have not made an effort to give sufficient allowance for the work which the tenant does in this way.

Then there is the question of tenants who have been for twenty years paying interest in lieu of rent on estates that were taken over twenty years ago by the Congested Districts Board and not vested until quite recently. You have that huge amount of money being paid during that period by the tenants. Is it not possible for the Land Commission to make some compensation to the tenants for the losses they have thus incurred? If their holdings had been vested, as should have been done years ago, that amount of money would be saved to the tenants. Would the Land Commission not consider it advisable and just that some method should be adopted so that improvements should be carried out on the holdings or facilities given to those tenants for building? I understand that a housing scheme is being carried on by the Land Commission on certain estates. Offers were recently made by the Land Commission officials to the tenants on a certain estate in County Mayo of a grant for the purpose of building houses and building out-offices. I should like to know if the Parliamentary Secretary would give us full particulars of that scheme. People seem to know very little about that scheme or they seem not to know whether the scheme is in existence at all. Deputies find it very hard to get information about that scheme. I think that we should have a little more knowledge about that. In the case of tenants on estates who have been left for a number of years without anything being done to them, and who have been paying interest in lieu of rent, I suggest that it is only just to them that some scheme of that kind for improving their houses, giving loans or grants, or a general scheme for the improvement of the land should be undertaken at the present time. The tenants certainly require something of that kind to compensate them for the methods that have been employed by the Land Commission, which resulted in leaving them in that state for some time. With regard to the progress that is being made by the Land Commission, we are not satisfied that the best has been done. I still cannot come to the conclusion that the Parliamentary Secretary has in any way succeeded in speeding up the division of ranches or the re-arrangement of holdings. I cannot see that there is anything in the claim of the Land Commission that they are so overpowered with work that they can do nothing. That seems to be the position of the Land Commission for quite a number of years. I would prefer that they would put aside a lot of estates and take a few at a time and do them, as the position at present seems to be that they have so much in hand they can do nothing.

Mr. Smith

I am anxious to know from the Parliamentary Secretary what portion of the money voted in any year for the improvement of estates goes to tenanted land. As far as this Vote is concerned for untenanted land, it does not affect my constituency very much. There are a number of estates on which the tenants have been agitating since the vesting of the land for certain improvements, such as the improvement of bog passes, the improvement of rights of way and matters of that kind. I understand that under a former Act the landlord always set aside certain sums of money for the doing of this work. For the last two or three years the Land Commission have more or less set their face against carrying out these improvements, and I think it is most unfair. The tenants on these estates, who have been paying enormous rents for a long time, are entitled to their share of this Vote, just the same as those who receive portions of untenanted land. As far as we are concerned, we have not been treated very satisfactorily in that way, and I should like to know what is going to be the attitude of the Land Commission in future.

Mr. T. O'Reilly

With regard to the improvement of estates, I have seen very little done in South Kerry. Nothing has been done in the way of repairs to embankments or by way of drainage. By drainage I mean small streams which have filled up and in time of flood overflow their banks and destroy meadows on both sides. I have seen very little done also in regard to turbary roads, although I have repeatedly brought the matter before the Land Commission and have been promised that it would receive attention when the lands were vested. The lands have been vested, and still nothing has been done in the way of making turbary roads. With regard to embankments, I know of lands vested twenty or thirty years ago, and the Land Commission have refused to do anything in the way of repairs. Before lands are vested the Land Commission send down inspectors to see that they are value for the money to be advanced. It was the duty of the Land Commission, therefore, before they advanced the money to see that proper provision was made for the maintenance of the banks, and a certain amount had a right to be kept back from the landlords. If the Land Commission did not do that at the time, they should now bear the expense of repairing the banks. I hope that in the coming summer the Land Commission will see that the turbary roads are put in such a condition that vehicles can pass over them, so as not to have donkeys carrying turf on their backs for half a mile or more.

Mr. Allen

I want information as to the attitude of the Land Commission in the case of estates which are flooded. The Parliamentary Secretary is aware of a number of estates in Wexford which have been flooded for a number of years. The Land Commission, about six years ago, promised to take some steps to relieve the flooding. While one section of this Department are out for their pound of flesh in collecting annuities, the other section, which has the distribution of such Votes as this, do nothing to relieve the flooding by repairing the embankments. The Parliamentary Secretary is well aware of what I am referring to. Another matter is the question of coast erosion. Will any portion of this money be spent to prevent coast erosion? What are the Land Commission going to do in a case where ten or twenty acres of a particular holding have been washed away by the sea and the tenant has got no relief in his annuity and no relief in his rates? I remember the Parliamentary Secretary stating that he was waiting for the report of the Coast Erosion Committee, and I wonder has that Committee reported yet, or when we are likely to have any information in the matter of coast erosion. I know one particular farmer in Wexford who has lost about eighteen acres of his land in this way, and he is still paying rent and rates for land which is under water. That case was mentioned in the House before, but nothing has been done in the matter. I hope that when this money comes to be spent the Parliamentary Secretary will look after the flooded estates. The Land Commission are getting annuities for these lands, and it is up to them to keep them in order. They cannot expect tenants to pay annuities for land that is under water the whole year round. In my constituency there are several hundreds of acres of land under water even in the month of June, and the Land Commission still continue to collect annuities for these lands. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to speed up his officials and see that something is done to relieve these farmers.

Mr. Kilroy

I should like to remind the Parliamentary Secretary that in my constituency the C.D.B. divided up a lot of farms in their time. In many of these cases there are bog roads and drainage work left unfinished, even on some of the first farms handled by the C.D.B. Appeals have been made repeatedly in this Parliament as well as in the British Parliament to have these works finished, but they are still unfinished. I have repeatedly asked questions on the matter since I came here in 1927. In some cases works have been carried out, but in many instances the works are yet incomplete, both in connection with bog roads and the drainage of very small holdings. It is important that this drainage work should be carried out, especially during the winter, when the unemployment grant will be available. If the Land Commission cannot get the work done out of their own funds, I understand that the Unemployment Grant will be largely in the hands of the Land Commission engineers as on other occasions. I trust, therefore, that a lot of this work will be done during the coming winter.

Mr. G. Wolfe

The Land Commission have a lot of things on hand, and one cannot, of course, expect miracles or having things done in a sudden, but I think, where they have lands on hands for a long time, it is not unreasonable to expect that they should do their best to see that the drainage of these lands is kept in order. There is a case that I once or twice brought forward, that of an extremely industrious farmer. The land about him was taken up by the Land Commission and the drains have not been attended to. The consequence is that the water all comes down on this man's land. No matter what he does his land is flooded. The other tenants lower down are not in such a bad position, but this man suffered a great deal, particularly during the abnormally wet season which we have just had. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will take notice of this particular case; it is an extremely hard one. I have frequently spoken about it, but I have not heard that anything has been done in the way of improvement. I also think that in cases where the Land Commission acquire turbary it is advisable that they should put the roads leading to the bogs in such a state that they could be used. In many cases that is not so. While turbary and lands are controlled by the Land Commission, before they are divided up and given over, the roads should be repaired and the drainage put in such a state that flooding will not interfere with people who have to make a living out of these lands or have to get turbary from certain bogs. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will look into these matters.

Mr. Corry

I am glad to have an opportunity on this Vote of calling attention to the enormous amount of extra payment now being demanded by the Land Commission.

An Ceann Comhairle

Does that opportunity arise on this Vote?

Mr. Corry

I understand we are discussing the Land Commission Vote?

An Ceann Comhairle

No.

Mr. Corry

Payments then?

An Ceann Comhairle

Does this Vote raise the question of collection?

Mr. Corry

I consider when we are advancing sums in connection with the Land Commissioners it raises the question of collection.

An Ceann Comhairle

I am not able to agree with that. I have been fairly liberal, as Deputies will realise, but I think the Deputy is drawing what I might call another red herring across the track.

Mr. Corry

In connection with the improvement of estates, three-fourths of the amount of the so-called improvements made by the Land Commission in my constituency are not improvements at all. They do actually far more harm than good. I called attention some time ago to the manner in which a house on the Mount Uniacke Estate was being wrecked, and there has been no improvement in that direction since. As a matter of fact, the wreck was finished by their own inspector. An unfortunate man got over portion of the estate, including the dwelling-house; the fact is that he was left with this huge wreck on his hands and had to pay a large amount of rates on it. The position was such that he might as well have cleared out and left it there. I do not consider that improvements of that description are any benefit to anyone. There were 15 steps leading to the hall-door of this house, but they were taken away, so that the man has to get a ladder in order to gain an entrance. That is one of the improvements that was carried out on the Mount Uniacke Estate. Surely the money spent on these so-called improvements could be put to better use and could be spent on giving some employment in the areas concerned. There are a whole lot of estates in my neighbourhood that the Land Commission is making no attempt whatever to divide up. I suggest that the assistance of the Department of Agriculture should be sought, and perhaps they would call in the members of the Derating Commission, who told us of 13 different ways of making money out of farms. If the Land Commission is not able to divide up these estates, perhaps they could ask those dealing with unemployment the way to do it. They could call in the experts who told us that the farmers needed no de-rating, and give them charge, and they would tell the way to make money out of the estates. It would be a far better way of dealing with them than handing them over to tenants with four different annuities clapped on top of them. They parcel them out in 20 or 40 acres to unfortunate tenants at rents that the tenants are entirely unable to pay. The estates in my constituency, divided in this manner, are going back to the old system of 11 months' grazing. Tenants are unable to pay, and the Land Commission is coming down upon them for the annuities. I personally take the view that the less number of these estates that are taken over between now and the general election, when a National Government will come in that will be able to deal with the question of estates, and the amount that tenants should pay in rent, the better, and that day is not far off.

Minister for Lands and Fisheries (Mr. Lynch)

Tibb's Eve.

Mr. Corry

If it is to be Tibb's Eve then you will have no tenants.

An Ceann Comhairle

Order, let us get back to the Supplementary Estimate or somewhere near it.

Mr. Corry

It is on the Estimate. Tibb's Eve is not on the Estimate, of course, but that is the Minister's interruption. That is the position. After all, when we are discussing a Vote on the Land Commission, and the Vote to improve estates, we have to consider the kind of improvement carried out. There is no use giving lands to unfortunate tenants with an accumulation of four or five rents clapped on to them by landlord-inspired Acts. We all know the anxiety of people to get a bit of land. They take it over, never dreaming they will have to walk out of it again leaving whatever few pounds they had behind them. That is what is happening. I do not believe the money spent in the improvement of estates is spent well. I believe it is spent badly and in a wretched manner, and I am taking advantage of this Vote to call attention to the manner in which it is spent. The Parliamentary Secretary has been close on two years considering the position in regard to the Mount Uniacke estate. I never saw such a wreck made of any place as has been made of it. I consider that the Land Commission should take steps with a view to giving employment on the estates which they hold.

[An Leas-Cheann Comhairle took the Chair.]

The former owners of these estates gave employment, some of them keeping twenty or thirty men working. The land is now let on the eleven months' system, and, with the exception of one man to mind the bullocks, no one is employed, so that the last state is worse than the first.

The Minister should get some of the well-paid agricultural experts on his staff and put them on a farm in order to show us how to make money out of the land. Apparently the farmers in the Free State, if we are to believe the Minister and the Executive Council, do not know how to make money out of the land. The De-rating Commission told the farmers that they did not know how to make money. Let them take a few of the experts who signed the majority report on that Commission and put them in charge of farms so that we may see how they would get on. Under the circumstances the less money spent by the Land Commission in this way the better until we know where we are, and until we have someone in power who will be able to let the land at a fair rent. The policy of taking over thousands of acres, paying the loot to the landlord and letting him go and spend the money elsewhere, is not going to get us anywhere, especially when these estates are being let on the eleven months' system. Estates have been taken over on which twenty and thirty men were employed formerly and set on the eleven months' system. That has been going on from five to ten years, with no one on the lands except a caretaker to mind the bullocks. To my mind, that is not the way to improve estates. Unfortunately that has been the policy of the Land Commission in the Twenty-Six Counties for some years. If that is the improvement work that is being done I think we should not pay £218,000 for it.

Mr. J. Wolfe

I do not know of any Government Department that has been subjected to more ignorant criticism during the four and a half years that I have been a member of the Dáil than the Land Commission. We have had Deputies standing up time after time criticising the operations of the Land Commission while they could hardly spell the words "Land Commission" let alone tell us what they meant. They are willing to tell us about land purchase and practice under the Land Acts, and they are willing to go the length of bringing two Bills into this House, the effect of one of which, if passed, would be to take from this House the power to acquire land compulsorily for the relief of congestion. That was the first step the Opposition took to amend Land Commission procedure.

Mr. Derrig

That is not right. I submit that the Deputy is out of order.

Mr. Wolfe

I am quite willing to admit that when Deputy Derrig saw the Bill he did not know what it meant. We had a further effort to amend Land Commission procedure. The second Bill that was brought in meant this: that if it was passed a great number of annuity payers in Saorstát Eireann would have their annuities increased.

Mr. Derrig

The Deputy is also wrong there.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That has nothing to do with the present Estimate.

Mr. Corry

That is the legal adviser of the House—the late Crown Solicitor for Cork——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Order!

Mr. Wolfe

I may be an ex-Crown Prosecutor, but I was never a spy.

Mr. Corry

I went damn near shooting you as a spy once, and I am damned sorry now I did not. It is one of the regrets of my lifetime.

Mr. Wolfe

The Deputy says he is sorry he did not shoot me.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Order. Let us get to the Estimate.

Mr. Wolfe

I wonder is he very sorry for the murder of the ex-policeman, Williams. I warn the Deputy that while I am an ex-Crown Solicitor, and very proud of the fact, I was never a spy and I had never anything to do with the Mourne Abbey ambush. I never received a penny secret service money, nor any member of my family.

Mr. Corry

I question that very much. How much did you get in connection with the murder of McCurtin?

Mr. Wolfe

What I wish to say is——.

Mr. Corry

If the Deputy wants it, I will give it to him.

Mr. Wolfe

What I wish to say is that there is one class of tenants who are calling out for attention on the part of the Land Commission and calling eagerly for it and in absolute need. These are the sub-tenants who have not been affected by the recent reductions. I must say that some of the tenants who have got the reduction are behaving very badly towards the sub-tenants. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to see that at a very early stage the needs of sub-tenants will be looked after and the necessary steps taken to vest these sub-tenants. I know that the Parliamentary Secretary and the Land Commission cannot do impossibilities, but speaking with some knowledge of Land Commission practice and procedure I am bound to say that the work of the Land Commission during the year 1931 has been a credit not merely to the Parliamentary Secretary and to the staff—the head of whom I am glad to say is a Corkman, as is naturally to be expected—but a credit to the country. I make the further appeal that notwithstanding the superhuman efforts that have been made to deal speedily and in an expeditious way with the work that sub-tenants should be dealt with at the earliest possible moment. Something should be done to give sub-tenants some relief from their immediate landlords, and the procedure should not be allowed to continue whereby the immediate landlords get the reductions which the Act gives, and do not pass these reductions on to the sub-tenants.

Mr. Maguire

Before passing this Estimate I would like the House to be given some undertaking that the money asked for here will be expended in the fair and above-board manner in which all public money should be expended. I have not the same experience in connection with the Land Commission that Deputy J. T. Wolfe had. I am not aware that the Land Commission have done things in the magnificent efficient way he tells us they have. My experience is just the opposite. As this Vote will mean passing money through the hands of the Parliamentary Secretary I would ask him to give an undertaking to this House that that money will not be spent as the moneys have been spent in the past by the Land Commission for the purpose of advocating the advancement of the members of Cumann na nGaedheal in the various parts of the country. That is quite opposed to the manner in which State moneys should be administered and the purposes to which they could be devoted.

I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to give to this House an explanation of that case in Grange, in his own constituency, where the Land Commission have taken over land. In that case, having taken over a farm they subdivided it, but subsequent pressure was brought to bear from the Cumann na nGaedheal organisation in the district. Pressure was brought to bear upon the individual who had been allotted a certain portion of the estate. The Land Commission Inspectors, backed by the assistance of the Civic Guards, called upon the man and compelled him to sign a document surrendering his right to the property given to him. Before this Vote passes through the House I want the Parliamentary Secretary to give an explanation of that case. I want to say that the ordinary administration of the Land Act, and the decision of the court in Sligo, was a decision that would not justify confidence in the Land Commission nor in their administration of the public money voted by this House. I would like to have an explanation from the Secretary on that matter and an undertaking from him that the money in future under this Vote will be spent in a different manner to that in which it has been spent in the past.

At a meeting in Drumshambo, at which the Parliamentary Secretary for Lands and Fisheries was present, another Parliamentary Secretary, Mr. J. N. Dolan, was on the platform, and speaking there he stated that the road work undertaken by the Land Commission in the area was in this position: that the grant was definitely secured by the Cumann na nGaedheal organisation in the district. In view of this important occasion in which two Parliamentary Secretaries are involved, this House will, and must, have an undertaking that that sort of work shall cease and that the funds that we are asked to vote this evening, which represent money to be secured from the entire taxpayers of the country, will be spent in the general interest of the community and that it will not be spent in the interest of the Cumann na nGaedheal organisation in the constituency. That is all I wish to say.

I refer to this because though this case and others in which the Land Commission are concerned are so glaring that I am afraid I cannot hope for any general improvement, I at least will insist on making my protest here and asking the Parliamentary Secretary responsible to give an undertaking that the money will be honestly spent and that it will be devoted to the purposes for which the House is voting it. The Parliamentary Secretary and his Executive might as well secure public money without ever asking the consent of this House for it, as to get money in the manner in which they are now conducting business. It is merely a sham coming to this House asking for a grant of money towards the development of Land Commission schemes when the money voted is not spent in an above-board and equitable manner. It is spent through a secret society and a secret organisation inside and outside controls the administration of these funds. The money voted to the Land Commission is spent in a manner that is a public scandal, and it has undoubtedly created a very bad impression throughout the country. I would ask again from the Parliamentary Secretary an explanation as to the spending of that money before this Vote is passed.

Mr. Gorry

I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary a question with regard to the drainage of the Little Boyne. I understand that the inspectors have reported and that the drainage of this river has been engaging the attention of the Land Commission for some time past. The situation there is very serious, because in its present state this river is causing serious flooding by which a large tract of land is made unworkable. All parties in the district are in favour of having this relief work carried out. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to take that into consideration and expedite the matter so that failing a favourable decision they might look in another direction for relief if the Land Commission does not see its way to carry out the work.

Mr. Harris

I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary a question regarding the estates the Land Commission have acquired in Co. Kildare.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy has spoken already.

Mr. Derrig

Is not the Deputy entitled to ask a question?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I suggest that the usual practice is to wait until the Parliamentary Secretary has concluded and then ask a question.

Mr. Allen

Is not the Deputy entitled to speak in Committee on Finance more than once?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Yes, but the practice on Supplementary Estimates is to make one speech. I am not depriving the Deputy of his right to ask a question, but I am pointing out to him that the practice is to wait until the Parliamentary Secretary has concluded his reply on the debate and then to put a question. The Deputy can ask his question at the end.

Mr. Roddy

Surely Deputies do not expect me to carry the details of all estates in the country in my head and to be in a position to supply information with regard to all State lands anywhere, at any moment. I am quite prepared to give the Deputies any information I possibly can, but if they want detailed information about estates or the particular work with which the Land Commission has been dealing, then I suggest that they should put down a question on the Order Paper, and I would be in a position to give information.

In reply to Deputy Derrig, I really cannot indicate to him at the moment the time when the payments under Section 11 of the Land Act of 1923 will cease. This payment not only covers tenanted land but also governs another class of land which we succeeded in bringing under the Land Act of 1931, namely, lands subject to fee-farm grants or long leases. What amount will be required for the purpose of paying interest and sinking fund on the bonds issued in respect of the transfer of that class of land I am not in the position to estimate. But the amount which will fall this year under Section 28 will be reduced very considerably next year, because at the end of the next financial year we will have dealt with practically all the tenanted land in the country. I can assure the Deputy that in future this amount will be reduced very substantially. Next year, I am sure the amount ought not to exceed £3,000 or £4,000.

With regard to the improvement of estates, I want to say that in every estate divided by the Land Commission certain improvement works are undertaken—works which in the opinion of the Land Commission are considered necessary for the development of that particular estate. The greater portion of the money advanced for the purpose of carrying out these improvements is by way of free grant and the tenants are only asked to pay back to the Land Commission a relatively small proportion of the money advanced in that way. It depends entirely on a variety of circumstances whether they are asked to pay back this money. The paying back of this money depends on a great many circumstances. The paying back of this money depends on ability to repay some of the money advanced. It depends on the annuity fixed instead of the rents, and it depends, perhaps, to a lesser extent on the nature of the improvements which it is proposed to carry out. In the West of Ireland in the poorer counties this money is advanced almost wholly by way of free grants and only in very exceptional circumstances are the tenants asked to repay any portion of it.

Deputy Clery asked me was it proposed to make any compensation to tenants who had been making payment in lieu of rent for a long period of years. We have in all these cases spent a certain amount of money in improving estates and on homesteads. In some cases we have actually built new houses and before these estates are disposed of finally we propose to spend further moneys so as to still further develop them.

Then so far as the estates coming under the Act of 1923 are concerned I could not at the moment give Deputy Allen any information of the actual amount of money spent on the tenanted land as distinct from the untenanted land. I presume it will be possible to get that information. If he wants it I can give it to him at a later date. We have undoubtedly spent considerable sums of money on the development of untenanted land, much more so than on tenanted land. For that there are two or three reasons. One is that we cannot spend money on tenanted land until we are in a position to vest that land in the tenants. Under the recent Land Act, land has been vested in the Land Commission and in the interregnum between the vesting of the land in the Land Commission and the vesting of the fee simple in the tenants it will be possible for the Land Commission to spend a considerable amount of money on the improvement of estates. We have, as a matter of fact already commenced to spend money on the improvement of numbers of estates and that procedure will be continued until we have dealt with all the estates under the Land Act of 1923.

Prior to the Land Commission undertaking such expenditure of money a very exhaustive and a very thorough examination is made of the different estates, and every improvement considered necessary for the purpose of utilising and developing these estates fully is reported upon by the inspectors in charge. The work of course will naturally occupy a great many years. I could not say even now, although I was pressed to say when the Land Bill of 1929 was going through the Dáil, how many years it will take to complete that work and I do not think anybody is in a position to form even an approximate estimate of how long the work will take.

The embankment question is an exceptionally difficult question, and on account of the abnormally wet seasons we have had during the past few years it has become more difficult. There has been flooding in areas during the past four years where there never was flooding previously. At the moment an examination of the whole embankment question is being made by the Land Commission and certain steps are being taken in certain areas in order to repair breaches in certain embankments and where embankments have been weak to strengthen them in many ways, but the money set aside by the Land Commission in days gone by for the purpose of carrying out improvements on many of these embankments is entirely inadequate nowadays for that purpose. The value of money has changed enormously, wages have increased enormously and the price of materials is considerably higher to-day than in the days when money was set aside for this particular purpose. For that reason in many instances it is necessary for the Land Commission out of the improvement fund, to supplement the amount set aside in the trustee fund for this particular purpose. We are carrying out a number of improvements to embankments at present. We have carried out a number of these improvements during the last year and we propose to carry out even a greater number next year than last year. I am fully acquainted with the conditions in the area to which Deputy Allen referred. I told the Deputy a few weeks ago what we proposed to do in that area.

Mr. Allen

You have been telling me for four years.

Mr. Roddy

I admit that the trouble has been in existence for a number of years, but I think the Deputy will realise that it is quite impossible to deal with work on an estate that has not been reached and when there is no money available for this purpose. Now that the purchase money has been set aside it will be possible to deal with the matter, and a sum will shortly be set aside in order to carry out the work. Deputy O'Reilly referred to embankments in Kerry, but I am afraid the Deputy is not aware of the conditions in that area. Otherwise he must have known that an enormous amount of money has been spent on embankments there, not alone in maintaining existing embankments, but in constructing new ones.

Mr. O'Reilly

Not in South Kerry.

Mr. Roddy

I did see the figures some few weeks ago, and though I am not in a position to quote them now, I can say that an enormous amount of money has been spent in Kerry, not alone in maintaining existing embankments, but in constructing new embankments.

Mr. O'Reilly

Not in South Kerry.

Mr. Roddy

All over the county, in the South as well as the North. I think there is money actually being spent on the construction of some new embankments there.

Mr. O'Reilly

Would the Parliamentary Secretary tell me if he intends to do any work in Castlemaine?

Mr. Roddy

We are dealing with the banks in Castlemaine, but I could not give the details.

Mr. Allen

Could you give——

Mr. Roddy

I do not think the report of the Committee is available yet. I have not yet seen it. Until the report of the Committee is available nothing can be done.

Mr. Harris

I do not intend to ask for detailed information, but to deal with the question of estates generally. I know some estates that have been acquired by the Land Commission, and for some reason or another they did not divide them immediately after they acquired them. To give an example, the Lyons Estate has been acquired for more than twelve months, and the Land Commission has set the land for grazing for eleven or twelve months. Could improvements not be carried out on those estates now as there is so much to be done? If the Land Commission decide to allot this land in spring, the people to whom it is allotted will have to drain the land and make fences before they are in a position to till it. Could that work not be carried out pending a division of the estate?

Mr. Roddy

I would want to know the actual details before I could answer the question. We cannot carry out improvement works on any estate until we get possession. Of course, we cannot take over possession until the vendor has satisfied us that the title is perfectly clear and that no difficulty is likely to arise as between the original owner, the tenants and the Land Commission.

Mr. Harris

You have had this estate for twelve months.

Mr. Roddy

I could not answer the question at the moment. If the Deputy puts down a question I will make inquiries and be able to give details.

Mr. Harris

It is possible to carry out improvements.

Mr. Roddy

There may be some difficulties of which I do not know at the moment.

Mr. Goulding

The Parliamentary Secretary has not answered my question, whether the money to be spent on embankments has to be borne by the tenants, where the responsibility for the maintenance of these embankments has been borne by the landlord in the past.

Mr. Roddy

This question was discussed some few months ago when the Bill was going through the Dáil. At least, I was under the impression that I made it perfectly clear then that the Land Commission proposed to deduct certain sums from the purchase money, which sums would be placed under the control of the Public Trustee and invested, and that the income from the investments would be utilised for the purpose of maintaining embankments. That has been always the procedure.

Mr. Blaney

I would like to know from the Parliamentary Secretary whether a decision has yet been arrived at regarding the position of the tenant farmers on the Stewart Estate, Donegal.

Mr. Roddy

The Deputy had better put down a Parliamentary question about that. I do not remember the details in connection with that estate.

Mr. Blaney

I did raise a question a considerable time ago, and the Parliamentary Secretary replied, in the first place, to the effect that he did not know anything about the land but that he would get the agent to make a report. As a matter of fact, I think the Land Commission requested the agent on the Stewart estate to make a report. On raising the matter again I got a reply to the effect that a report was received and that consideration was being given to the matter. The position is that these tenants, while a lot has been said about the benefits conferred by the Land Acts of 1923 to 1931, have got no benefit. They are paying the old rent to the landlord, and I think it is time now that some consideration should be given to the question.

Mr. Little

The Parliamentary Secretary has said that this money which is being put aside would be devoted to maintaining embankments, and he also mentioned that some of that money will be used to deal with the very special flooding this year. I should like to ask him whether any of that money is to be applied for dealing with embankments in connection with farms which had been actually purchased out previously. There is an embankment at Portlaw in which there is one breach through which the water is going and is ruining several of the farms.

Mr. Roddy

I am not quite clear as to what money the Deputy is referring to. Is he referring to money I am asking for on this vote or to other money?

Mr. Little

I thought that as the question of embankments was raised I could raise that question as a matter of principle.

Mr. Roddy

Money, to a certain amount, to the amount which, in the opinion of the Land Commission, is considered to be adequate for the future upkeep and maintenance of the embankment, is deducted from the purchase price—it may be £1,000 or £2,000 or £5,000—and that money is placed under the control of the Public Trustee. From it there is a certain income, and that income is used for the purpose of maintaining that embankment. And if that amount is insufficient the Land Commission can supplement it by a grant from the Improvement Fund or other sources.

Mr. Little

I thought that all the money was pooled and that the money not required on one embankment might be used for improvements on other estates.

Mr. Roddy

No.

Mr. Walsh

Will the Parliamentary Secretary consider the case of estates divided in 1923 in which large fines had been placed on tenants who had got lands on those estates? Will he give any consideration to the cases of estates like that? I know of one estate in the County Mayo in connection with which £50, and in some cases £150, have been asked of tenants who have been migrated into that estate. They were given time to pay the fines, but they are not able to pay the fines now.

Mr. Roddy

I do not know the details. It is quite conceivable that the demand for fines was quite legitimate. A tenant put into a new holding might have got better value than the holding from which he came. I should want to know the details. It is a common thing in migration.

Motion put and agreed to.