—I move:—
Go ndeontar suim ná raghaidh thar £1,040,546 chun slánuithe na suime is gá chun íoctha an Mhuirir a thiocfaidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh lá de Mhárta, 1938, chun Tuarastail agus Costaisí Oifig an Aire Tailte agus 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. 37; 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; Uimh. 31 de 1929; Uimh. 11 de 1931; Uimh. 33 agus Uimh. 38 de 1933, Uimh. 11 de 1934; agus Uimh. 41 de 1936).
That a sum not exceeding £1,040,546 be granted to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1938, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Offices of the Minister for Lands and of the Irish Land Commission (44 and 45 Vict., c. 49, s. 46, and c. 71, s. 4; 48 and 49 Vict., c. 73, s.s. 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; 11 of 1934 and 41 of 1936).
The amount of the Vote for the current year shows a net increase of £132,325 on the previous year's total (as adjusted to include the Supplementary Estimate of February last). The principal increases under individual headings which need be mentioned come under sub-heads A, B, I, Q, R and W.
Salaries, wages and allowances under sub-head A are increased by £32,475, owing to an increase in staff (mainly in the inspectorate and acquisition and resales division) and to the normal additions by way of increments of basic salary and bonus. Additional staff is necessary to enable the Land Commissioners to handle the extra work arising out of their activities in land division without undue delay; and also to permit of the enlargement and resumption of important work on the resale of tenanted land estates and of Congested District Board estates in the West many of which have been in hands for years.
Travelling expenses under sub-head B are increased by £2,000 consequent on the increase in the inspectorate staff and anticipated intensive work in inspecting lands for division and other purposes.
There is an increase of £61,200 for land improvement under sub-head I. Last year a sum of £606,992 was actually expended on estate improvements, and it is anticipated that this year's programme of work will be heavier. Improvement expenditure is mainly concerned with such items as house-building, fences, drains and accommodation roads, on newly-divided land, and it will be understood that much of the money expended in any year is in respect of lands which were allotted in the preceding year or even earlier.
It is generally agreed that the outlay on land improvement is useful and economic as it permanently increases the productive capacity of the land and provides welcome employment in agricultural areas, where such work as drainage, fencing and roadmaking can be done largely by unskilled local labour.
It should be mentioned that, included under sub-head I this year, is provision for the payment under Section 35 of the Land Act, 1936, of compensation in respect of extinguishment of rights of way, and also provision for assistance to migrants from the Gaeltacht (which appeared under a separate sub-head, X, in last year's Estimate). This sub-head further includes, as heretofore, sums required for payments under the Workmen's Compensation Act and for the purchase of tenancy interests in holdings on Congested Districts Board estates required to be taken up for division. These items amount to £8,750 and thus the actual amount available for improvement works will be £700,000.
The amount provided under sub-head Q to meet deficiencies in the Land Bond Fund arising from the revision of annuities under Part III of the Land Act, 1933, is increased by £21,000, in view of additional advances expected to be made in the current year and the consequent revision of the annuities by which such advances are repayable, involving a corresponding addition to the deficiency charge.
The amount required under sub-head R for the completion of purchase proceedings still pending under the Land Acts of 1903 and 1909 was put in last year's original Estimate at £7,000, but this was cut down to £2,000 on the taking of the Supplementary Estimate, owing to the advances made during the year under these old Acts having been less than anticipated. The amount for the current year is restored to the figure of £7,000, and this explains the apparent increase of £5,000 under this sub-head.
The apparent increase of £17,000 under sub-head W, for fees payable in connection with proceedings under Section 28 of the Land Act, 1933, is due to the previous Estimate having had reference only to that portion of the year 1936-37 subsequent to the passing of the Land Act, 1936 (on the 14th August last). Section 17 of that Act rectified the omission in Section 28 of the 1933 Act of the specific power to levy sheriff's lodgment fees in respect of warrants issued for the recovery of unpaid annuities, and a sub-head to cover such fees was accordingly introduced in the Supplementary Estimate for last year. It is difficult to estimate accurately what such fees may amount to in the current year, but the round figure of £40,000 is considered adequate. These lodgment fees when recovered from defaulting annuitants are credited as an Appropriation-in-Aid of the Vote. It is expected that about one-fourth of the estimated sum of £40,000 may be so recovered during the current year.
The sub-heads mentioned comprise those in which any considerable increase is shown on last year's Estimate. Most of the other sub-heads are more or less stereotyped, where the annual Estimates only vary within narrow limits, and a number of them represent nominal sums in respect of which actual expenditure is unlikely to arise, though token provision must be made to meet contingent liability.
It should be mentioned, however, that the increase of £500 shown under sub-head F for incidental expenses of the solicitor's branch is due to the inclusion this year of provision for the payment in certain circumstances of compensation to objectors to provisional lists, under Section 26 of the Land Act of 1936.
It will be noticed that sub-head S is now split into two parts. The first part continues the payments due to be made under Section 14, sub-section (4) of the Land Act, 1933, to owners in respect of arrears of interest in lieu of rent, as in last year's original Estimate. The second part is required to meet the deficiency arising from the operation of sub-section (3) of Section 15 of the Land Act, 1933, reducing by 50 per cent. the amount of payment in lieu of rent payable by tenants (who have not yet become annuitants). The Land Commission are (under sub-section (4) of Section 20 of the Land Act, 1923) bound to pay landlords the full amount of payment in lieu of rent, and consequently it is necessary to make provision in the Vote to bridge the gap. A sub-head for this purpose was introduced in the Supplementary Estimate taken in February last. The amount of that sub-head (£1,500) included recoupment of borrowings made from other moneys in the hands of the Department as a temporary arrangement to meet the deficiency. The Estimate for the present year represents only the amount necessary for current payments and the amount is therefore reduced to £500.
The Appropriations-in-Aid of the Vote are expected to realise this year £6,990 more than last year, mainly attributable to the increased amount of fees to be collected in connection with proceedings under Section 28 of the Land Act, 1933 (to which reference has been already made in commenting on sub-head W.
As regards the general proceedings of the Land Commission during the past year, the work in all sections has been well maintained. In regard to the division of untenanted land it has not been possible to repeat the remarkable record of the previous year, owing partly to the increasing difficulty of obtaining large tracts of untenanted land suitable for division and more particularly to the fact that the actual operation of the Land Act, 1936, has been confined to the latter portion of the year. The Act was not passed until the middle of August last and, after that, it took some time to make the necessary rules and regulations for putting its powers into practice. In the circumstances the Land Commission have done well in achieving the division of some 70,000 acres among some 5,800 allottees under the Land Acts 1923-36 and, in addition, over 4,000 acres among 420 allottees on Congested Districts Board Estates. The precise figures are not yet available, as it takes some time to get in and analyse all the division schemes. The mere figures of area divided, however, do not give a full picture of the work achieved. In the year 1935-36 the number of schemes for the distribution of 103,872 acres under the Land Acts, 1923-33 was 950, giving an average of 109 acres per scheme. In the year 1936-37 the number of schemes for the distribution of 70,000 acres was about 900, giving an average of 78 acres per scheme. There is often just as much time and trouble entailed in the acquisition and division of a small estate as of a big one, and this factor should be borne in mind in considering the work of the Land Commission.
As already mentioned, a sum of £606,992 was expended on estate improvements during the year 1936-37, which constitutes a record for the Land Commission.
On the tenanted land side, during the past year some 3,000 holdings were vested in tenant purchasers and the preparation of estates for revesting made good progress. Mere figures of completed vestings do not give a proper idea of the immense amount of correspondence and investigation work involved in the disposal of both the 1923 Act estates and the old Congested Districts Board estates.
As regards the collection of annuities, the position is gradually improving. Of the total amount collectible for all gales from November-December, 1933, to November-December, 1936, inclusive, amounting to £8,489,130, there had been collected at the 31st March last £7,454,000 approximately, leaving an arrear of £1,035,130, or slightly over 12 per cent. of the total collectible. As regards the current gale to November-December, 1936, about 65 per cent. of the amount collectible has been already collected (up to the 31st March last) which, allowing for all the circumstances, is satisfactory. It compares with a collection of about 61 per cent. of the amount collectible for the November-December, 1935, gale at the corresponding date last year.
One other matter of interest to which some reference may be made in conclusion is the recent migration from the Gaeltacht to the new Gaeltacht colony No. 2 at Gibstown, County Meath. The first stage of this has been successfully accomplished and suitable migrants have been selected and installed in the 50 holdings at present available. Nine additional holdings are being prepared on adjoining lands.
The allocation of the migrants has been made from various Gaeltacht counties—16 from Kerry, two from West Cork, six from South Mayo, 12 from North Mayo and 14 from Donegal. The migrants are of a good type and appear to be eager for success in their new holdings. This is a most important factor in a venture such as this, where the personal element counts for a good deal, especially in the initial stage when a certain amount of adaptation to a new environment is required. There is every hope that the colony will be quite successful, and it will form an important contribution towards the solution of the problem of relieving congestion.
In this connection I would like to take the opportunity to correct a statement made by way of reply to a question of Deputy O'Leary on the 21st instant, in reference to the average all-in cost to the Land Commission of holdings allotted to migrants from the Gaeltacht to colony No. 1 at Rathcarran The figure is £1,051 per holding included the cost of providing holdings for four local allottees who had been previously employed on the estate, as this cost had not then been segregated from the cost of providing the 27 holdings for the migrants. The proper average cost for each holding allotted to a migrant from the Gaeltacht is £980 instead of £1,051. Of this figure of £980 per holding, about £295 represents the extra cost of installing a migrant from the Gaeltacht as compared with the cost of allotment to a local landless man.