It appears to me that Deputy Corry must not be attending properly to the business of his constituents when there are so many thousands of acres of waste land there. I am afraid when the report of his speech is read by his supporters in the "Cork Examiner" to-morrow morning they will not be very much impressed with the case he has put up in their interests to the Land Commission. Deputy Corry has always been in the habit of putting forward extraordinary cases, even when he was in opposition, and when the circumstances were subsequently examined it was found that they bore no relation to the cases he quoted in the Dáil, so that I personally attach very little importance to any statement made by Deputy Corry in regard to Land Commission matters, especially in the days when he was in opposition here.
The estimate for the improvement of estates has undoubtedly increased very substantially during recent years and there is no doubt, in expending the money in the manner in which it is being expended, the Land Commission is creating a capital asset, which is more than can be said for a great deal of the money so foolishly expended by the present Government in so many other directions. I do not understand the anxiety of the Land Commission to procure an increased grant of £120,000 at present for the improvement of estates in view of the fact that the Land Commission at the moment must have some thousands of applications before them for grants recommended during the last two, three or four years by their inspectors throughout the country. I know of cases where grants were recommended at least three years ago for either reconstruction or for the purpose of erecting new houses and these grants have not yet been sanctioned by the Land Commission notwithstanding, as Deputy Corry has reminded us, that the headquarters staff has been very substantially increased during recent years. As a matter of fact, instead of the three commissioners who were functioning under the late Government, there are five commissioners functioning to-day, all of them, I understand, dealing with the ordinary work of Land Commission administration. I have sent numerous letters to the Secretary of the Land Commission in his official capacity complaining of delays that have taken place in the granting of money for the purpose of reconstructing dwellinghouses, erecting new houses, carrying out necessary works of drainage or making the necessary roads on lands divided during the last three or four years.
I do not understand the policy pursued by the Land Commission in regard to the serving of notices on tenants with respect to the visits of inspectors for the purpose of making reports as to the suitability or otherwise of their land for acquisition. It does seem to me that a great deal of insecurity has been created amongst all sorts of farmers, large and small, because of the indiscriminate way in which notices have been served on farmers throughout this State. I will just mention two cases which were brought to my notice during the last few months. In both cases the tenants had purchased out under the 1903 Land Act. In one case the man had two holdings. In the case of one holding, which we will call the home farm, on which he had his dwellinghouse, the area was five Irish acres. The other holding, which was about 1½ miles distant, consisted of 20 Irish acres. Both holdings were worked in a most modern way. They were tilled to the utmost of their capacity and conformed in every respect with the conditions laid down in the Land Act of 1933. Yet this man was served with a notice that the holding consisting of 20 Irish acres was to be visited by an inspector for the purpose of reporting on its suitability for acquisition. That happened only two or three months ago.
In the other instance, a man was living on a holding of 9¼ Irish acres, at least 25 per cent of which was tilled. He had an outlying farm of 15 Irish acres and I am sure that out of that 15 Irish acres three or four were tilled. This holding was managed also in a most modern and efficient way and yet this man was served with a notice that his outlying farm was to be visited by an inspector for the purpose of reporting on its suitability or otherwise for acquisition. These are two of at least 20 cases brought to my notice during the last six months.
The Land Commission is pursuing this policy indiscriminately in other counties as well as the county which I represent. I could quote for the Parliamentary Secretary another instance where the area of land is even smaller and where the owner was served with a notice that one of his two divisions of land was to be visited by an inspector. In the neighbourhood of the two farms to which I have referred there are big areas of land, at least two big farms, for which the Land Commission have been negotiating within the last three or four years with the object of acquiring them. These two big farms would be more than adequate for the relief of congestion in the neighbourhood of the holdings to which I have referred. Only last week another instance was brought under my notice where a similar notice was served on another man whose holdings corresponded in area with the area of the holdings which I have mentioned.
Does the Parliamentary Secretary imagine for one moment that when such a feeling of insecurity exists amongst all classes of farmers, large and small, the State is going to get the results we have been told so frequently they desire to get from the farmers? Surely the Parliamentary Secretary will realise that such a policy, if pursued indiscriminately in the manner in which it is being pursued, will create such a feeling of insecurity that these farmers will lose all interest in their farms and eventually they may be reduced to the position that they are quite prepared to hand the land over to the Land Commission or the Government.
I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary or his Minister to examine personally into the policy which officials are pursuing in regard to this matter that I have mentioned and for goodness' sake let him proclaim publicly if that is their policy and if they mean to adhere to it. If it is not, then he ought to see to it that they will stop it immediately.
There is one item in the Estimate which provides a certain amount for expenses incurred through the settlement of the Gaeltacht colonists in Meath. I would be very much interested to hear the Parliamentary Secretary dilating somewhat on the success which has already attended the settlement of these colonists in County Meath. It does appear that the establishment of Gaelic colonies outside the Gaeltacht is going on the part of the Exchequer.
I would like to ascertain from the Parliamentary Secretary whether it is the policy of his Department to go on subsidising indefinitely this policy of migration from the Gaeltacht to the eastern countries? After all, that policy of migration may turn out in the end to be very expensive, in fact the expense may be so great that it may be entirely uneconomic to continue such a policy beyond the experimental stage. For that reason I submit that it is necessary to examine and to watch this policy of migration very closely. I would be very much interested to hear the Parliamentary Secretary on the results which have attended this migration policy up to the present. I would like, furthermore, to know if he considers that the expense involved in the migration of these colonies has been reasonable, and if, in his opinion, he considers that it is economic. Furthermore, as it does appear to be his policy to go on still further with the migration from the Gaeltacht to the eastern counties, will he say if he is satisfied that that policy can be pursued at a cost which, in his opinion, is reasonable and a cost which the State can afford to bear?
There is one other matter that I think bears directly on sub-head A, the Improvement of Estates, and that is the way in which the land is being divided at the present time. According to the Land Acts, land can only be acquired for the purpose of the relief of congestion. But I notice that, during the last two years especially, land is being utilised for purposes other than the relief of congestion. Land is being distributed in such a manner as will probably lead to the creation of a new land policy in the course of the next 20 or 25 years. It has been laid down, I think, by the present Minister for Lands that an economic holding is a minimum of ten Irish acres or, in other words, it represents a holding of a valuation of, approximately, £10, and that any man with a holding of a lesser valuation than £10 does not possess an economic holding. Is it the policy of the Land Commission to bring these men up to the £10 standard laid down by the Minister, which is part and parcel of the policy at present being pursued? Not at all. At the present moment in the division of land, parcels of one, two or three acres are given out to landless men, with the result that instead of making an impression on the problem of congestion you are widening that problem and you are creating a new problem for some Land Commission in the far distant future. What is the policy of the Land Commission with regard to the distribution of land? Land can only be acquired for one purpose, the relief of congestion. That is clearly laid down in the Land Acts. I submit that the land that is being distributed is not utilised for the relief of congestion. A good deal of the land divided is being distributed in such a manner as to widen the problem of congestion, and it is increasing instead of reducing the number of congests.
I have no objection to landless men and men in labourers' cottages getting land. But if it is the policy of the Land Commission that holdings under £10 valuation are uneconomic, then I ask what is the use in giving an acre or two or three acres of land to a landless man? Is the Minister satisfied that the man can live on two or three acres of land? Does not the Minister realise, as well as we realise, that at some future time such a man will, in order to be given an opportunity of making a livelihood, have to be given as much additional land as will bring that man's valuation up to the £10 standard laid down by the policy of the Land Commission. As a matter of fact, at the moment you have no policy for the relief of congestion. You have a policy really for the socialisation of land. That is the policy that the Land Commission is pursuing and not a policy for the relief of congestion at all. Quite a substantial acreage of the land distributed during the last two years, especially, is being utilised in the manner I have just described. I want the Parliamentary Secretary to inform me, and through me the House, what is the policy of the Land Commission in regard to the distribution of land. Does he mean to follow the standards laid down in the Land Acts, standards which only entitle the Land Commission to acquire land for the specific purpose for which land can be acquired? I have a suspicion that the Land Commission is being drawn to this policy by influences that have recently been brought into it, and that the Land Commission, because of the strength of these influences, has been diverted from the purpose for which it was established—the only legal pur pose for which it exists—and if it is allowed to pursue its present policy indefinitely it will land this country into the position that after a certain number of years we will find the problem of the relief of congestion such that it will be necessary to introduce in another Parliament a Bill for dealing with this question anew.
I notice under sub-head C there is an item relating to "incidental expenses." There is one sub-head under the heading of "advertising." But the Parliamentary Secretary did not at all dilate on that. He offered no explanation as to the purpose for which it was incurred or what was the necessity for this extensive advertising. Does that refer to exclusively to the letting of lands on the 11 or 12 months system, to the sale of the houses, or the letting of timber? To what exactly does it refer? I only raise the point because it seemed to me that that expenditure is abnormal. The Land Commission hitherto did not advertise much. The amount spent was negligible, but a sum of £1,300 in the Supplementary Estimate for the purpose of advertising alone looks rather abnormal and alarming. If it was to be spent for the purpose of broadcasting their policy in regard to some points I have mentioned some of that expenditure might be justified. I notice that the Parliamentary Secretary was rather shy about saying anything in public about his present policy.