Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 27 Feb 1935

Vol. 55 No. 1

Vote No. 56—Land Commission.

I move:—

Go ndeontar suim Bhreise ná raghaidh thar £38,150 chun íoctha an mhuirir a thiocfaidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh Márta, 1935, chun Tuarastail agus Costaisí Oifig Choimisiún Talmhan na hEireann (44 and 45 Vict., c. 49, a. 46, agus c. 71, a. 4; 48 and 49 Vict., c. 73, a. 17, 18 agus 20; 53 and 54 Vict., c. 49, a. 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; Uimh. 27 agus Uimh. 42 de 1923; Uimh. 25 de 1925; Uimh. 11 de 1926; Uimh. 19 de 1927; Uimh. 31 de 1929; Uimh. 11 de 1931; Uimh. 33 agus Uimh. 38 de 1933) agus Uimh. 11 de 1934.

That a Supplementary sum not exceeding £38,150 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending 31st March, 1935, 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; 31 of 1929; 11 of 1931; 33 and 38 of 1933; and 11 of 1934).

Minister for Lands (Mr. Connolly)

This Supplementary Estimate is necessary to meet anticipated excesses on certain sub-heads of the Vote, i.e.:— sub-head C—Incidental Expenses, £300; sub-head G—Telegrams and Telephones, £240; sub-head I— Improvement of Estates, etc., £80,000; sub-head J—Advances to meet deficiency of income from untenanted lands purchased under the Land Acts 1923-33, £2,000, together with expenditure under two new sub-heads, i.e.— sub-head Z1—Purchase of Tolls and Customs (Knox Gore C.D.B. Estate), £362; sub-head Z2.—Assistance to Migrants from the Gaeltacht, £300. These items amount in all to £83,202, against which are set-off anticipated savings on other sub-heads amounting to £37,252, and an anticipated excess in respect of Appropriations-in-Aid amounting to £7,800, leaving the net amount required £38,150.

The anticipated excess of £300 on sub-head C is due mainly to an increase in the cost of advertisements and the excess of £240 on sub-head G to increased payments for telegrams and telephones, both arising, in the main, from the greater activities of the Department in the course of the year.

The anticipated excess of £80,000 on sub-head I (Improvement of Estates, etc.) is due to the increased amount of work undertaken in connection with the Government's policy of proceeding as rapidly as possible with the division of untenanted land. The expenditure during the current year on roads, fences, drains, dwellinghouses and out-offices has been in excess of the average of recent years and much useful work has been done to date. The original provision under sub-head I, i.e. £250,050 contains a sum of £240,000 in respect of improvements, but the expenditure on improvement works during the current year up to the 31st January last amounted to over £251,000, and it is expected that, in consequence of the exceptional amount of work which the Department will be undertaking in connection with the division of untenanted land within the next couple of months, the total expenditure for the whole year will not be less than £320,000.

It is also anticipated that there will be an excess of about £2,000 on sub-head J. on account of the deficiency in income from untenanted land purchased under the Land Acts, 1923-33 to meet payments to the Land Bond Fund for interest on purchase moneys outstanding and to pay rates and other outgoings in respect of lands on hands pending allotment.

The untenanted lands affected by this sub-head are those which have been divided amongst allottees but have not yet been published in lists of holdings under Section 24 of the Land Act, 1931 and those lands which are still on hands awaiting allotment.

The provision under sub-head ZI— the estimated amount required is £362 —is to meet the purchase price of the Ballycastle tolls and customs on the Knox Gore Estate, County Mayo. This estate was originally purchased by the Congested Districts Board but the Ballycastle tolls and customs were excluded from the sale owing to a delay in making title. This matter has now been satisfactorily disposed of and the necessary conveyance to the Land Commission as successors to the Congested Districts Board has been made. The expenditure, however, being of an unusual type could not be charged against any of the existing sub-heads in the Land Commission Vote and in acordance with the usual practice it is being met out of this new sub-head.

The provision under sub-head Z2— estimated amount required, £300—is to meet special expenditure which will be incurred in connection with the migration of congests from the Gaeltacht to the new colonies which are being established in County Meath. The Government are anxious that these migrants should be given every possible opportunity to succeed in their new homes and, as many of them will be persons of small means, it is proposed to make provision for various needs before their arrival. As it is expected that some of the first migrants will arrive in the early spring, it is essential that a portion of each of their holdings should be cultivated on arrival. It is proposed also to give the migrants practical instruction in the form of agriculture best suited for the development of their new holdings, but that will be attended to by the Department of Agriculture and this Vote is not concerned with it.

The total of the foregoing excesses and of the two new sub-heads amounts to £83,202, which sum is off-set by savings on other sub-heads amounting to £37,252 and increased Appropriations-in-Aid of £7,800, leaving the net amount of the Estimate £38,150. The anticipated savings are spread over various sub-heads, the principal being under sub-head S. £5,000 and sub-head W. £20,000.

The anticipated saving of £5,000 on sub-head S (amount required to complete purchase proceedings pending under the Land Acts, 1903-09) is due to the fact that the sum originally provided for this service, i.e., £25,000, will not all be required this year. This sub-head provides for advances and bonus moneys payable under the Land Acts, 1903-09. The anticipated saving under sub-head W (fees payable in connection with proceedings under Section 28, Land Act, 1933) is £20,000. This sub-head provides for the payment of lodgment fees to sheriffs and county registrars in respect of warrants issued under Section 28 of the Land Act, 1933, for the recovery of unpaid instalments of land purchase annuities, etc. This is the first year in which it has been found necessary to make this provision and the amount originally inserted in the Estimate, i.e., £48,000, was necessarily conjectural. It is not anticipated that expenditure will exceed £28,000, so that there will be a saving on this service of £20,000. Small anticipated savings spread over a number of other sub-heads of the Vote account for the balance amounting to £12,252.

The estimated increase in appropriations-in-aid is due to increases under the following heads: Excess annuities, £3,000; Repayment of fees in connection with sheriffs' proceedings under Section 28 of the Land Act, 1933, £2,000; other miscellaneous items, £2,800. Excess annuities represent the recoupment of that portion of the expenditure in past years on improvement of holdings which was made repayable by means of annuities as distinct from free grants. Lodgment fees recovered by sheriffs and county registrars in connection with proceedings under Section 28 of the Land Act, 1933, are repayable by them to the Land Commission and are appropriated in aid of the Vote. The original Estimate under this head was £8,000, but it is estimated that this will now be exceeded by £2,000.

Mr. Lynch

This is, in fact, asking the Dáil for a sum of £83,302 in addition to what was already voted. There are, of course, appropriations-in-aid and so on, making the net sum £38,150. The sum of £83,000 is largely made up of the item £80,000 against sub-head I of the original Estimate for the improvement of estates. The Minister, in putting the new Estimate to the House, said this expenditure was necessary because of the fact that the Department was proceeding as rapidly as possible with the division of untenanted land. That would be excellent if it were a fact. It is not a fact and that is proved by the Minister's answer in the House on 13th February to questions put down by various Deputies from this side of the House covering the whole Twenty-Six Counties.

The reply was set out in tabular form and is to be found in columns 833 and 834 of the Official Report for 13th February. There is set out there a table showing the number of persons placed on the land and the number of acres divided for the years 1925 to 1934. It makes very illuminating reading when one considers what the Minister has said, that this Vote is to be largely directed to carrying out the Government's policy of proceeding as rapidly as possible with the division of untenanted land and the amount of propaganda made by the Government and their spokesmen with regard to this question. Everywhere you have had it blazoned forth that this is the Government which was really placing the people on the land; that we have got a Government who are placing the people on the land at an extraordinary rate as compared with their predecessors. Here are the facts. I will go back only to 1927, because from 1927 to 1931 I was responsible, as Minister in charge of that particular Department. I shall merely give the number of persons placed on the land from 1927 to 1934; I shall not trouble the House with the acreage. In the year 1927 there were 864 persons placed on the land; in 1928, 982; in 1929, 711; in 1930 1,013; in 1931, 614.

And now comes the Christian Government.

Mr. Lynch

Now comes the change of Government. They started in 1932 by putting 456 persons on the land; in 1933, 517, and in 1934, 485. In no year since this Government came into office have they placed as many people on the land as we placed in our slackest year, in the year 1931, when we placed 614 persons. That is the "proceeding as rapidly as possible" which the Minister talks about. These are figures supplied by the Minister's own Department in reply to a question. It is an extraordinary state of affairs in view of those figures that they have come to the House and looked for a further Vote. I am not opposing the Vote. As a matter of fact, every year this particular Vote for the improvement of estates came up here on the main Estimate we have stated that there was not sufficient money being asked for if the Government were serious in intending to deal with the division of land. If I remember rightly, this money for the improvement of estates can only be expended pending the vesting of estates; once an estate is vested it passes as it were, from the purview of the Land Commission as far as improvement is concerned, and no further money will be expended upon it. We are not going to vote against this, but it is an extraordinary thing that more money is required now in spite of the fact that fewer people are being placed on the land and less land is being divided than in any year during the nine years preceding the change of Government.

I wish to make just one slight comment on the new Vote with regard to assistance for migrants from the Gaeltacht. I was not here at question time to-day when a question was put by Deputy Davin as to the order in which persons are being dealt with now when an estate is being divided; but Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney has told me that it is something like this: (1) herds, etc. employed on the estate—that was always the way; (2) landless men; (3) migrants. If that is so, that is an extraordinary change. It means that we are going away from the policy of dealing with the existing congestion in order to deal with the landless men. The Minister spoke of this money being made available for some particular scheme for bringing persons to County Meath. If the policy of the Land Commission now is that when an estate is being divided landless men, who, perhaps, have really no touch with agricultural work, are to get preference to migrants, or congests in other words, it is a matter that should be explained to the House. Other schemes which prevailed in the Gaeltacht for dealing with the economic conditions there have been abandoned by the Minister's Department or are in process of being abandoned. If that is so, one felt at least that when it came to the Land Commission side of his Department the Minister would make up for that by being particularly generous towards congestion in the Gaeltacht. That cannot be so if, when estates are being divided in Deputy Davin's constituency or in Meath and so on, he is first of all going to tackle the local landless men problem before he brings in any migrants from the Gaeltacht to relieve the congestion there. That is all I have to say on the Vote.

I want to refer briefly to the figures that Deputy Lynch has read out to the House. I can remember the Minister for Lands in West Donegal and when he came there he always brought with him a torchlight procession with a brass band.

Mr. Connolly

I never brought them with me.

When I saw him he had them. In any case, he came as a harbinger of a Christian Government to explain to the people of West Donegal that his ambition was to supplant a ranchers' Government, a Government that ground down the poor, that fostered ranchers and that denied to the hard-working people of this country an opportunity of earning a livelihood upon the land. If he were to be given an opportunity of driving the Land Commission to do the duty that they were there to do, there would be land for the people and bread for the poor. We all remember that talk—the Christian Government; back to the land; the land was going to be given back to the Irish people. Propaganda became so fast and furious that even so distinguished a man as G. K. Chesterton got lyrical and wrote an article about it to say that there had arisen in Ireland a great prophet who was going to put the people back on the land. The prophet set to work and after three years' strenuous labour the prophet has not put on the land in any single year much more than half of what his predecessor did without any talk at all. Do I err on the side of severity when I characterise that as hypocrisy, when you stump the country and delude the unfortunate people into believing that you are sustainers of Christian principles, that the evidence of your Christianity is the rapidity with which you are going to divide the land, and it is then discovered that you are not only insincere but incompetent to boot?

I think those figures are figures that will astonish the people of this country. I think that they astonish some of the members of the Fianna Fáil Party themselves. I think it is a good thing that the people of this country should realise that when there was no talk at all about the great things that were going to be done, it was possible to put 1,000 people on the land in one year and that when we were deafened by the blatant propaganda about the lofty Christian principles that were inspiring the new Government, we never could rise above 500. If Christian principles on the subjects of plunder and murder were put into practice a little more vigorously, and there was less talk about Christian principles in setting people on the land, there would be less cause for criticism of the Supplementary Estimate which we have before us now. I am glad that the Land Commission are getting this money if it means that they are going to speed up the work and I trust that, with this added money, the Minister will be able to redeem at least part of the high falutin' undertakings he gave to the strains of a brass band in the glow of a torchlight procession in Donegal. I hope that he will have more success in these activities of his new office than he had in his last office.

There is just one question I should like to ask: why is it I can never get an answer from the Land Commission? From most Departments of State if you write a letter to them, you can get some information out of them, but write a letter to the Land Commission and you might as well post your letter in the refuse box in O'Connell Street. I freely confess that when you approach a particular officer of the Department with a formal complaint in regard to any specific case, immediate steps are taken to trace your communication, but an ordinary letter addressed to the Land Commission on any matter of ordinary every-day work may remain unanswered from anything from six to nine months. In one case I remember I was for nine months trying to get information from the Land Commission. Immediately I wrote to the principal officer of the Department, I got what I was looking for. I do seriously submit to the Minister that the method whereby correspondence is dealt with in the Land Commission requires a general overhaul and vigorous measures should be taken to ensure that persons who make legitimate inquiries by correspondence will be attended to and will get the information they require. Deputy MacDermot suggests that they are too busy answering Fianna Fáil clubs. That may be the case but then the reform may not be required inside the Land Commission and I have no doubt that if the Minister will start out with his torchlight procession and his brass band he will be able to discipline the Fianna Fáil clubs as effectively and, I hope, more effectively, than he is able to control the Irish Land Commission.

There is another point to raise. I remember when the offensive section of the 1933 Land Act was going through which gave the Land Commission power to issue warrants to the sheriff, I made the point that it was a monstrous thing that the Land Commission should have the power to issue warrants authorising the sheriff to seize in cases where tenant purchasers were genuinely unable to pay. The Minister for Defence was in charge of the Bill, and I remember his saying that it was unthinkable that the Land Commission, with their long experience, would dream of making a seizure on any tenant purchaser who was genuinely unable to pay. He pointed out that it would be mere folly to do so because the annuity was a recurring charge, and that it would be futile to enter a man's land and take away a man's means of livelihood to satisfy one gale, as that would mean that he would be totally unable to pay any subsequent gale. I took that with a grain of salt, but I determined to test it out. A man wrote to me a full statement of his case, pointing out that he was literally unable to pay, though most anxious to pay. I wrote back to him and said that if he would give me leave to take his letter to the Land Commission and, if needs be, to quote it in Dáil Eireann, I was in a position to say that he would not be further pressed, and that the Minister had given a clear undertaking that in cases where men were genuinely unable to pay they would not be liable to seizure. I sallied off to the Land Commission with my letter, and I think I satisfied the Commission that the man was genuinely unable to pay. I left hoping that the Minister's undertaking would be redeemed, but to the best of my knowledge and belief no exception of any kind good, bad or indifferent was made in that case. I want to ask the Minister to state specifically now on this Estimate, that if satisfactory proof is put in his hands that a man is genuinely unable to pay, though willing to pay if he can sell his stock or get money in any other way, will the Minister forbid seizure being made at his place, so long as it is possible to satisfy the Minister that the man is not shirking payment, but is genuinely unable to pay? I should like to get a categorical answer to that question.

There is another matter which has become a very serious nuisance in the country. In a number of cases in the early days of the Irish Land Commission when they were dividing estates, they made by-roads. I should say first that these by-roads frequently do not connect two main roads and under a judgment of Chief Baron Palles, it has been decided that the county council may not spend money on the maintenance of roads which are not roads of public convenience. It is only roads that connect two main roads which are held to be roads of public convenience. So you have now a situation in which the county councils will not maintain these roads. In some cases you have labourers cottages built along these roads and the Board of Health will not repair the roads. As far as I can find out, nobody is responsible for the maintenance of the roads with the result that in one case, with which I am personally familiar, the residents of labourers' cottages along the roads have literally to wade out of their houses. Might I suggest to the Minister that if he has the power, he should take some steps to transfer these roads to somebody upon whom a statutory obligation would rest to maintain them or else that he should take such steps as may be necessary to put these roads into repair himself?

I should like the Minister to tell the House the average price being paid for land acquired under the 1933 Land Act. The gravest possible complaints are being made that land is being acquired under that Act on terms which amount almost to confiscation. The Minister may have seen correspondence in the public Press alleging that the terms on which a certain farm of land has been acquired amount to confiscation. It is most important that the Minister should make a comprehensive statement in order to assure the people that the terms of the 1933 Land Act are not being used for a purpose for which they were never intended, and that the Minister very clearly assured the House they would never be used for. I move to report progress.

Progress reported. The Committee to sit again.
Barr
Roinn