Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 4 May 1938

Vol. 71 No. 4

Committee on Finance. - Vote 54—Lands (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the motion:
That the Estimate be referred back for reconsideration. —Deputy Davin.

On the last evening on which this Estimate was before us, we were discussing the question whether or not the Land Commission were paying an adequate price for the tenanted land they were acquiring. Deputy Gorey seemed to think that they had not been paying anything for this tenanted land. He objected to any tenanted land being acquired by the Land Commission. I think that that question was thrashed out very fully during many years in this House—the question whether or not the Land Commission should have authority to acquire tenanted land. There were very large tracts of tenanted land, and it was absolutely necessary that the Land Commission should have power to acquire it.

We brought in that legislation long before you came here.

That is right, but you are trying to repudiate it now.

What you want to do is to rob—get somebody else to pay for your patriotism.

You are trying to repudiate that right now and deny that it ever existed. This Government were supposed to be bad fellows for trying to put that provision into operation. I have heard only one case —that mentioned by Deputy Cosgrave —in which the Land Commission did not pay a fair price to the tenant. I say it is right that they should pay the market value to the tenant. Whatever be the cost of redemption, the tenant is entitled to the fair market value of his land, and I hope it is the policy of the Land Commission to pay that for any tenanted land they acquire over and above the cost of redemption. The cost of redemption has nothing to do with the tenant. He is entitled to the fair market value, same as any other holder of tenanted land who sells it. I believe that it is the policy of the Land Commission to pay the fair market value for tenanted land as they have paid for untenanted land. I hope we have heard the last of this talk of stealing land and seizing people's property——

You know it is going on.

It is not going on, and well the Deputy knows it.

It is going on every day.

It is not going on at all. There are no highway robbers in this country. Nobody knows better than Deputy Gorey that the owners of tenanted land have got a fair price from the Land Commission. Isolated cases may be mentioned. We do not know the reasons which operated in the case mentioned by Deputy Cosgrave, but if the owner did not get a fair price in that case I am sure the Minister will be able to explain the reason.

There are thousands of cases as well as that.

Why did you not mention one?

That was a glaring case.

I should be sorry to think that the Land Commission were not paying fair market value for tenanted land over and above the cost of redemption.

Is redemption ever talked about at an auction?

I said "over and above the cost of redemption." I think that should please anybody. We all understand what that means. I want to refer to the difficulty in getting the Land Commission to provide rights of way. I have been bringing a particular case to the notice of the Land Commission for a long number of years. Deputy Corish recently asked a question in the House about it. It is extremely difficult to get the Land Commission to provide a right of way where, for some reason or other, a right of way has been blotted out. It may have become a bog or it may have been washed out by the sea. In this case, the man lives on the sea coast and, owing to coast erosion, he has no means of getting to his holding. But for the goodness of his neighbours, he could not possibly get in or out to the road. For five years, the Land Commission have been promising to give this man a right of way but he is still the same as he was five years ago.

As regards derelict and semi-derelict holdings, I think it is time the policy of the Land Commission changed, because up to now it has been impossible to get them to deal with these holdings. They ignore their existence, and the ratepayers in the country are compelled by law to pay both annuities and rates for these derelict holdings. I hope the Land Commission will take that into consideration and see that these holdings are acquired and given to people who are anxious for land. In County Wexford we have plenty of land for everybody but none to spare. We should, however, have no objection to migrants from the West of Ireland being brought there if it is necessary to find land for them—if there is no land available for them in Meath. Deputy Giles and Deputy O'Reilly objected to any more people from the West of Ireland going into Meath. As a Deputy coming from a tillage county, I think it is surprising to travel for hours through Meath, Westmeath and Roscommon and see nothing but grass. I am sure that this House and the country will stand for the policy of the Land Commission to divide up that land. The land could then be tilled and we could have people living on it. I think that that is the sound policy. I am afraid that the Land Commission do not select the most suitable people in some cases when they are dividing land in County Meath. They should give the land to people brought up on small holdings— people who will work the land. There is no use in putting people on the land who will let it in a few years. The people put on it should be people who know something about the working of land—people who have lived on small holdings and who are accustomed to the economy of those holdings. There is no use in dividing up the lands of Meath if you do not put on them people who know how to work them and who can live according to the economy suited to these holdings. That is the key to success in dividing lands in Meath and Westmeath, where there do not seem to be any people to work land and where they all seem to have too much land.

As regards the size of the holdings, Deputy McGowan, I think, said that people could not live on less than 40 acres of land in County Dublin. A large number of the best people in this country are living on from 15 to 20 acres of inferior land. There are not 40 acres of land available for everybody who needs land in this country, and 40 acres in County Dublin or County Meath are better than 80 acres in other counties. I think that the present policy of the Land Commission in giving from 20 acres to 25 acres is sound policy. If you have that amount of land to spare for every person in the congested areas, you will have done a good day's work when you have divided it. It is wrong to say that it is better to leave the Midlands in grass than to give the land to people who will work it and rear families on it. No land should be left in large ranches or in grass, and the sooner the Land Commission get on to dividing the lands of the Midlands the better.

One of the paradoxes that seem to exist so far as the ordinary observer of country conditions is concerned is that, notwithstanding all our legislation and all our activities, farmers can raise no credit whatever from the financial institutions of the country. There seems to be something wrong—what it is I do not know—with the credit of the country, which has its base on the land and depends on those who produce from the land. Industry has to live through that means in the towns and the cities. It seems to me that the more legislation we pass here the less opportunity is offered to the farmer to raise anything on his land. I should like some expert to offer an explanation of that state of affairs.

I would like to draw the Minister's attention to the position of land division in County Louth. So far as I am aware, the land division is being carried out in a fair way, but it has happened on one or two occasions that people are asked what service have they given in the national cause. Whether that is actually true I am not in a position to say, but the report has gone around County Louth that such questions are being asked. I do not think that is fair. I think everyone should be entitled to get land if they are in a position to work it. I am not making any charge against the officials of the Land Commission. I have studiously refrained from interfering with regard to the question of getting land for any person. I have sufficient confidence in the Land Commission officials to do the right thing.

One matter I desire to refer to is in connection with the action of the Land Commission in taking land from the people who were already allotted land ten or 11 years ago. I refer now to the people of Drumcashel. These people were in occupation for a period of ten or 11 years. They have paid their annuities each year. The land was recently taken from them on the plea that they were not tilling it; in other words, that they were letting the land. While that may be true of some allottees, it was not true of the whole of them. A few of them did their best to cultivate as much of the land as possible with the means at their disposal. There have been one or two cases of particular hardship. For instance, there is a widow there with a family. Her husband died through overwork trying to cultivate the land in order to make a living for himself, his wife and family. The widow, in order to rear the family, had perforce to let the land.

There seems to be a wrong conception in regard to this whole question of the letting of land. I feel you will have trouble when the day arrives when there is no land to be let in conacre. Anyone who knows anything about land knows that there are thousands of small farmers who could not exist if they were not in a position to take conacre each year. That is a well-known fact. What is the use of singling out people in an area such as I have referred to, and saying: "You are not tilling the land," when it is common knowledge that there are thousands of people letting land every year? Every week the local papers are full of advertisements from auctioneers and others notifying the public that so many acres are to be let in conacre. I cannot understand the action of the Land Commission in singling out these ten or 11 people at Drumcashel, which is one of the most peaceful and law-abiding areas to be found in the Twenty-Six Counties. Possibly it is because the people were so law-abiding that this action was taken. Perhaps advantage was taken of that fact, and the land Commission thought the people would be easy prey, and, unlike the people of other counties, they would not kick up a row. It should be remembered that there are many quiet people who can be just as sturdy as the next when they are up against it.

I think the Land Commission are very unwise to have taken such action as they did in this instance. I do not think it is the wish of the Minister, and I believe that if all the circumstances were put before him the people there would be still in possession of their land. As a result of the action of the Land Commission, a very serious agitation has started up there. People who were the best of neighbours before are to-day divided into hostile camps. I do not believe it was worth the price paid to take the land from these people and create the difficult situation which exists there. I am aware that the Minister is giving this matter his personal attention, and I should like to have a statement from him as to what he intends to do, whether he is going to reinstate all or any of the people in order to allay the public feeling in the district. I am bringing this matter forward now with the object of restoring normal conditions in that area and in the county generally. I believe there is no county where there is less trouble with regard to the division of land. So far as I know, everyone is satisfied, and it is a pity that this trouble has arisen. If the Minister is not now in a position to indicate the intentions of the Land Commission in regard to this matter I hope he will give us some information about it in the very near future.

It has been remarked that in my constituency, where the Land Commission acquire land, they confine themselves to the fairly large estates in areas that are not very thickly populated. Sometimes it is difficult to get the very best type of tenant for the holdings on those estates. On the other hand, there are areas in Kildare that are rather densely populated. I refer now to the areas adjoining the bogs, where the farms are not so very big, where there are no very large farms to acquire, and where the people have not raised very much of an agitation to have land divided. In those areas that are densely populated there are good types of applicants. Many of them have very uneconomic holdings. I suggest to the Minister that it would be important if he could induce some of the farmers to transfer from those places to the less densely populated areas and allow their holdings to be divided amongst the uneconomic holders. There were a few cases recently in which the Land Commission induced farmers to transfer, and the holdings that they left were divided amongst their former neighbours. That was very satisfactory; it certainly gave great satisfaction to everybody. The holdings in this instance were not very big, but the transfer did a certain amount of good and I would ask the Minister to pursue that type of policy in Kildare. I have no fault to find with the progress made in the county. A wonderful amount of land has been divided. I would like attention paid to those areas which I have mentioned.

Another matter to which I would like to refer is that where there are two or three sons on a farm there does not seem to be any prospect of the young men striking out and doing things for themselves. Many of them are good farmers. They have a good knowledge of agriculture, and I think more attention ought to be paid to them, even if they have to be transferred to another area. If they were brought into areas where the traditional tillage is not so good, they might serve as a good example to the people living there. I think something in that connection should be done. The Land Commission should give more attention to the claims of the sons of good-class farmers, men with 40 or 50 acres of land. These men are men of good families and they are the right kind of people to get the land. If they were given the land they would make good and they would be examples of efficiency to people with less knowledge of agricultural methods.

There are just a few points on this Vote which I wish to bring before the Minister. These are mainly with regard to the division of land in my area. As to the division of land there, I have no very serious complaint to make. I congratulate the Land Commission on the way in which they have divided estates down there. With regard to the payment of the workers who are building fences consequent on the division of those estates, I am aware that the men are paid fortnightly. If it were possible for the Minister to make arrangements to have the men paid weekly it would be a great boon to them and to their families. Deputy Minch stated that the credit of our farmers in the country was very low. I agree with him. Their credit was never lower than at the present time. The House and the country are aware of that. It is because of the distressing and depressing times through which they have passed in the last five or six years. I appeal this evening to the Minister on behalf of the farmers in the division I represent, and what I say of the farmers there applies to the farmers of the whole County Cork. I am aware that at the present moment there are in the hands of the sheriff thousands of decrees awaiting execution. The economic war has now ended and, with the help of God, I feel sure that in a very short time the country will get on its feet again. But it will take a long time before the farmers will be again on their feet. In the case of these farmers whose rents are in arrears and against whom the sheriff holds decrees I would appeal to the Minister not to have the decrees executed until after the harvest. During the past fortnight a number of farmers have come to me. These men had got 15 days' notice from the sheriff and I am aware myself that they are not in a position to pay now. After the harvest they hope to be in a position to do so. I appeal now to the Minister to extend the time for paying until then.

I cannot altogether agree with the statement made by Deputy Daly that the credit of our farmers is bad. Undoubtedly that may be the case in Cork, but I think I read in the papers a long time ago where Deputy Daly and a number of other people down there advocated a no-rent and a no-rate campaign——

They never did.

I think I read the thing anyhow and anyway it is well known to this House that that campaign was carried on by the members of the Fine Gael Party.

That statement is not true.

Do not break up the happy family.

The statement I have made is not untrue and the House knows that well. The credit of the farmer is not one ounce worse than it was seven or eight years ago. I know the farming community as well as any Deputy in the House and I am able to stand over that statement. We have a certain type of farmer down in the West of Ireland who should not be called a farmer at all. He is a grazier. He is the sort of man who always walked about with his hands in his pockets and never did a day's work in his life. His time is gone now. I listened to the speeches of Deputy Giles and Deputy O'Reilly. I think these were two of the most disgraceful speeches I ever heard in my life. Deputy Giles advocated a policy of asking the Land Commission not to take people from the West of Ireland and put them into the Meath bogs. I think we in the West of Ireland can stake as good a claim to the lands of Meath as any other people. I hope the Land Commission will go ahead along their present lines not alone in dividing the lands of Meath but also the lands of Kildare and several other counties. It is nearly time that the unfortunate people in the West of Ireland should get back a little of their own. It is due to them.

Deputy Harris would not agree with the Deputy.

I did not invite them.

I know the Deputy did not invite the people from the West of Ireland but he wanted somebody to work the land. He said there were places in Meath and Kildare that were not thickly populated. We have thickly populated areas and we can send you these people.

You were invited to send them to Wexford.

We have plenty to send everywhere. There are plenty of people that we could send from Galway and Mayo to fill all the vacant places in the country.

Fill Wexford first.

We will still have many left. We will have very many farmers still under £10 valuation. The Land Commission has done a lot of good work in my constituency. There is, however, still much to be done. I wish the Minister would come to see the necessity for making a bigger effort. Certain migrants have been taken away from the West. But the fact is that in certain areas in the West and in those very places where the people are crying out for land and where the average valuation of the farmer is small, there are a number of ranches waiting to be taken over. For years I have been advocating this; I have been pushing the Land Commission to take over certain big ranches. The very first year I came here I spoke about the number of ranches in the West; these ranches still remain. I refer the Minister to the Colonel Bernard Estate in Castlehackett. There are a number of other estates around Creggs. The Minister himself knows these estates. Then there is the estate of Garvey and the Morgan Estate and a number of others. If these estates were taken over, quite a lot of people would be fixed up. If the Land Commission would make a move in that direction it would be doing much to help the people. In and around Tuam we have a number of big untenanted farms. There is a man there by the name of Stafford who has a couple of thousand acres of such land.

This year in the West of Ireland we have been very much behind-hand in the production of the necessary quota of beet for the beet factory. That is owing to the fact that the people there have not sufficient land to rotate their crops. Many of them, after growing beet for two or three years, have now arrived at the stage when they have no place in which to grow it. That is a factor that should be taken into consideration by the Land Commission: they should keep it before their eyes when dividing these lands in the West. The beet factory in Tuam is a big asset to the farmers of Connacht. If one looks through a list of the beet producers for that factory he will find that there is scarcely a dozen people with a valuation of over £10 supplying beet to the factory. When an industry like that of beet has been set up, and when we find a falling off in the acreage produced for the supply of that factory, we should seek out the real reason for the drop in the acreage. The real solution of that difficulty would be the acquisition and division of the large untenanted farms and the large ranches in that area. These should be taken up at once by the Land Commission and dished out to the class of farmers who are anxious to grow beet if they had the necessary lands to do so.

We have heard a lot of talk in this debate about the uneconomic position of farms of 24, 25 or 30 acres. I know people who would be thoroughly satisfied if it were possible for them to get 24 acres of arable land to work on. I may tell the House that they would not be grousing about it. They would be quite satisfied and would be able to make a very good living for themselves and their families on a holding of that size. After all, when you find thousands of families the valuation of whose holdings does not exceed £2 10s. 0d each, and when you consider that those people have had to make a living on them, you can only ask yourself how much better off would these people be if they were given holdings with treble that valuation. They would be much better off. I would advise the Minister, whatever he is doing in the Midlands, to come along and solve the big problem which still remains to be solved in the West of Ireland. I would ask him to press the Land Commission to give more attention to the West of Ireland. If there are more inspectors needed he should get them, send them down to the West and get the land which is urgently needed by the people, divided.

I have on a number of occasions during the last few years made myself very unpopular, so to speak, amongst certain sections who were out for driving the cattle off the ranches in order to call attention to their claims. We want to preserve the law and my duty as a Deputy is to see that the people obey the law, but nevertheless I do not think I can blame them or ask them to desist if they decide on pulling down the walls or driving the cattle out on the road. I do not think I am going to stop them, either. If I were to speak my mind on the matter, I know what I would say. To avoid all that, I would advise the Land Commission to work a little faster on the farms that still remain to be divided in County Galway. I think that in South-East Galway, Deputy Beegan's area, there are still thousands of acres which the Land Commission have not touched. We have been introducing legislation for some years past to try to speed up the division of land and I do not see what obstacles there are in the way of that work at present. I would appeal once again to the Minister to pay more attention to these grass lands that remain undivided in the West of Ireland and thereby give us an opportunity of getting on our feet.

I suppose I also might as well add my few words of criticism of the methods of the Land Commission. It is generally recognised that farmers are not spending the same amount as in former years on manures, nor are they devoting the same amount of work to making shores, cleaning drains or improving the land as they did in years gone by, simply because of the uncertainty of tenure. They are not sure whether they will be allowed to keep their lands. If a farmer is desirous of purchasing some extra land to enable him to provide more freely for his family, he is afraid to do so because of the uncertainty attached to his tenure of these lands. He is afraid to stock the lands, lest he may have to sell the stock at an uneconomic price if the Land Commission decide to call on him with a view to the acquisition of the land. If he decides to sell his land, once the Land Commission inspector calls, it means the end of the sale of the property. He will have to keep it and work it as best he can pending a decision by the Land Commission. From the time the first inspector calls on the farmer who is unfortunate enough to have such a visit, there is a certain amount of suspense. He does not know what to do. He is afraid to till the land, because he does not know whether the Land Commission will take the land from him before the crops are removed, and he is afraid to stock the land as he may have to sell the stock at an uneconomic price. From the time the first inspector calls, it may be months or sometimes years before he is definitely told what the intentions of the Land Commission are. He will probably write to the Land Commission to know what is the result of the inspector's visit, and he may get a letter or a postcard, sent out by an official of the Department who probably does not understand what is printed on it. Then he may get a solicitor to write, and the solicitor may get a reply that the land will not be required, but he has not received that reply for any length of time until it is all forgotten by the Land Commission, and in a short time another inspector calls. I think that that is very wrong.

I think that if an inspector carries out an inspection of a farm, and the Land Commission say they do not want it, they ought to abide by their decision. They ought not to be the weathercock of some Party or some Deputies who come along later and make another demand that that land should be acquired. The land has not changed from the time it was first inspected. It is the same land that was there when the first inspector called. I repeat, therefore, that when the Land Commission decide that they are not going to take over a certain farm, they ought to abide by that decision and the occupier should not be knocked about from one inspector to the other. If, on the other hand, they decide to take over the farm—probably in a great many cases they have a perfect right to do so—from the time the decision is made until they are prepared to take over the land and pay for it, a long time is wasted and again the farmer is kept in suspense. In ordinary commercial dealing, the time within which the sale must be completed is definitely stated in the contract. The sale has to be completed within 14 or 21 days, as the case may be, but if the Land Commission makes a purchase the transaction may run for five years before it is finally completed. There is no idea of the length of time it will take the Land Commission to complete the purchase from the time the land is inspected, or even from the time they decide to acquire the farm.

I probably would not have intervened in the debate on this Estimate were it not for a letter which I received from a man in County Monaghan in connection with the division of certain lands in the Kingscourt area of County Cavan. This man complains that there were two estates divided, one containing something like 230 or 240 acres and the other containing about 234 acres. The first estate was taken over after a lot of agitation, but the second belonged to a man who had died recently. Consequently there was no reason why it should not have been taken over because it was not under tillage. It was practically all in grazing with the exception perhaps of a small area which was let out in meadow. The man who wrote me had two applicants for holdings on it. One of the applicants was a man who had been serving for the last 16 or 17 years on the 400-acre estate. That man had been living on the estate. The owner did not carry on a lot of tillage. He had a certain amount of hay-making to do in the summer time; otherwise there was not a lot to be done in the way of tillage. This man was kept for general work, doing a little gardening and work of that kind. Although he had been almost 17 years working on the estate, he was dispossessed and he had to leave the house and look for another position. I understood that when an estate of that kind was being divided, anyone serving on the estate, if he did not get first preference, would at least get some portion of the land and would be left as he was, in undisturbed possession. That has not been so in this case, and I think it is very unfair.

The other complaint I wish to make is about an applicant, whose grandfather owned an estate not so very long ago but who through misfortune got out of it. As I am not conversant with the facts I do not know if the grandfather was evicted or had to leave through non-payment of debts. The grandson thought he was entitled to a share of the 134 acres, but his application was turned down and he did not get a sod of the land. As these two estates were close together that man should have got a piece of land there. There were practically 700 acres between the two estates. In one case a man had to leave the house he was living in, as it belonged to the estate, and look for work elsewhere because he did not get an opportunity of getting it where he resided. I hope the Minister will inquire into these two complaints and see what is the reason for them.

Like many other Deputies I would like to compliment the Minister on the great increase in the acreage of land divided since he took charge of the Department, but I regret to say that I cannot compliment him as far as land division in my constituency in Waterford is concerned. It is an extraordinary state of affairs that in 1936-37 only 400 or 500 acres of land were divided there, despite the fact that at least 30,000 acres are available for acquisition and division. Land division in County Waterford appears to me to have been completely neglected by the Land Commission. The fact was brought to the notice of the Minister but, as far as I am aware there has been no improvement in land division in that area. The 30,000 acres available for division are made up mostly of derelict farms and holdings that are not being worked by existing tenants. I am sure the Minister and the Land Commission are aware of the tremendous burden imposed on the ratepayers by these holdings. Therefore, I cannot understand why they have not been acquired. The policy of the Land Commission appears to be to concentrate on areas where there is congestion. We are in this position in Waterford, that there is very little, if any, congestion there. I think it is a mistaken policy on the part of the Land Commission and the officials to concentrate on areas where there is congestion, and to neglect areas such as Waterford for a number of years, where there is a big acreage of land suitable for division amongst applicants in every way suitable for working land. The Land Commission seems very hesitant about acquiring land that is not adjacent to a congested area. I think that is a great mistake.

In Waterford constituency 60 per cent. of the applicants for land are of a special type. When I say that I mean a type that is not at present considered by the Land Commission— unmarried, landless men. Take the case of a farmer with a valuation of even £40 who may have three or four sons. The eldest son is married and lives on the holding, but the claims of the other brothers, who have an expert knowledge of land, having worked on it all their lives, and who, perhaps, have a capital of £100 or £200, are not considered at all by the Land Commission. That type of applicant should be seriously considered by the Land Commission, as they cannot expect the brother who is owner of a holding of 50 or 60 acres to divide it up. It would be ridiculous to expect him to do so. The best applicants in Waterford are unmarried men who are hoping that the Land Commission will give them a portion of the undivided land. I have not a great deal of experience of the division of land in Waterford, for the simple reason that very little land has been divided, but in the few estates that were divided I found that the landless men were completely ignored. The most suitable applicants are men who were brought up on the land and who, in all probability, will be found to have a little capital. They are looking forward to settling down and marrying on the land. I desire to impress upon the Minister the desirability of considering that type of applicant in future. The only alternative is to emigrate across the Channel or to seek employment in towns and cities. We want to avoid both of these alternatives. The Minister has the cure, and that is to settle them on the land. I am not opposed to cottiers and uneconomic holders getting land. They are certainly entitled to it, but I am opposed to the Land Commission and the officials trying to force land on people, cottiers and uneconomic holders, who never looked for it and who do not want it. I think it is ridiculous to ask such people to face the burden of working, say, 20 acres of land when they do not want them, especially when there is a good type of applicant willing to work it and who would make a success of it.

You are giving the game away.

Mr. Morrissey

I am not giving any game away. I am speaking of facts that affect my constituency. I say that landless men should be considered in future in any scheme of land division, because I think they are the most suitable applicants.

What are the cottier tenants?

Mr. Morrissey

I want to impress upon the Minister and upon the Land Commission that in Waterford at least 60 per cent. of the landless men are genuine applicants who would work the land and would make a success of it. In the division of land in that constituency I hope consideration will be given to the claims of landless men so that they may have an opportunity of settling on the land. I am sure they would be successful on it.

We do not want to have these men emigrating or having to seek employment out of the country. The way to meet that situation is to put them on the land. I want to draw the Minister's attention to the extraordinary position that exists with regard to the Usher Estate near Cappoquin which, I understand, was acquired by the Land Commission nine years ago. That is a long time.

Not for the Land Commission.

Mr. Morrissey

It has not been divided yet. I understand that for two out of nine years it was set for grazing and that it is set at the present time. It consists of 200 acres. One half is good arable land, and the other half is not so good, but with a drainage scheme it could be made suitable for grazing. I cannot understand why the Estate is not being divided in view of the fact that there are 13 families in the area who want land, and if they had it would work it. It has been said, but I do not know how true it is, the Land Commission are trying to sell this place. That is an extraordinary thing in view of the fact that you have so many families there anxious to get land and work it. I would ask the Land Commission to divide this Estate as soon as possible, and would like to have an explanation from the Minister as to why it has not been divided among the many genuine applicants in the area.

I would also like to refer to an estate of 40 acres in the County Waterford which has been acquired by the local golf club for a golf course. These 40 acres are in a congested area. In fact, I might say this is the only bit of land in the area that was available for division. All the people there derive their livelihood solely and mainly from tillage. It is on the Murphy Estate of Ballinacourt. Despite my representations to the Minister and to the Land Commission, I understand that the Minister has consented to the transfer of these 40 acres to the golf club. I have no objection whatever to golf, but everyone who knows the area is aware that there is plenty of other land, and not bad land by any means, that would be more suitable for this golf course at Dungarvan. I do not think you want really good land for a golf course. I have already made representations in connection with this, but I want again to protest strongly against the attitude of the Land Commission in transferring this land to a golf club. The harm is done now, and I suppose it cannot be rectified.

I would like to express the hope that the Land Commission would seriously set about the acquisition and division of land in the County Waterford. The fact that only 400 or 500 acres have been divided there in the past year shows that Waterford is being sadly neglected in that respect. It is time that the Land Commission made a determined effort to divide more land in the county. You have there 30,000 acres of land suitable for division. I understand that a large percentage of that acreage has been offered to the Land Commission. They seem to be very slow in acquiring land. We have in the county a big number of applicants for land, all of whom are desirous of settling down and making their living on the land. I do not see why, after five or six years, the Land Commission should not turn their attention to the County Waterford and speed up land division there.

I have heard the view expressed by some Deputies on the opposite benches that the Minister should slow down the activities of the Land Commission in acquiring and dividing land. That view was expressed, I think, by a Deputy from the County Tipperary. That may be all right so far as that county is concerned, because I understand that a great number of estates have been acquired and divided there, although I am sure you have a number of others which have yet to be acquired and divided. I disagree with the view expressed by that Deputy and would ask the Minister to go even faster than he has been going in the division and acquisition of land. The pursuance of such a policy, of putting the people back on the land, will provide the country with a real national asset. I would appeal to the Minister to put the descendants of our forefathers who were evicted during the land war back on the land. It is the best work that could be done by any Government. I would ask the Minister to bring pressure to bear on the Land Commission, and to give his whole attention to land division in the County Waterford.

That is a rather tall order.

Mr. Morrissey

If he does, he will be able to find plenty of scope for his officials. We have a big number of applicants waiting for land. They are suitable applicants in every way. If the Minister does that he will find the people down there very courteous and ready to give him every help in the work of speeding up land division.

As there has been a good deal of time spent in the debate on this Estimate, I do not propose to detain the House very long. Some few years ago, after the passing of the 1933 Land Act, I had great hopes that the acquisition of land would be speeded up. I am sorry to say that I have been disillusioned and, like Deputy Kennedy of Westmeath, I find it very hard to think, or believe, that the Land Commission have any serious intentions at all with regard to the acquisition of land or in trying to settle the land problem as we know it in this generation. I am not now referring to land that they cannot take over because of certain legal defects in our legislation. What I have in mind is land that they have taken over, portions of certain estates in the County of Galway where they have taken over 200 or 300 acres and left to the owner 1,200 acres. I hold that that is altogether too much in a county like Galway. We have a glaring case at the moment in the parish of Foherna, and that is the Johnston estate. The Land Commission proposes to take over something like 250 acres of land in a non-residential holding. This belongs to Mrs. Johnson. They are leaving her almost 100 acres. Her only son, living a mile distant from that holding, is left 500 acres of land. Some people talk about small holdings, and about the amount of land which should be left to the people so that they can eke out an existence. If it takes 500 acres of land and 1,200 acres of land to give an existence to a few families, what a contrast that is with villages such as I know in the County Galway where the total valuation of the holdings of 20 families is only £50. I certainly think that, with that state of affairs, it is no wonder we have discontent and dissatisfaction all over County Galway. I do hope that any defects in existing legislation which prevent the Land Commission from getting on with the acquisition of land will be very speedily removed.

I have nothing at all to say in regard to the division of land. I believe the division of land is very creditable as far as the Land Commission inspectors are concerned, but as regards the improvement of estates there is one thing I should like to say, and that is that on the part of some Land Commission inspectors there seems to be a tendency to place a very low estimate on the cost of carrying out improvements and bringing them up to the standard required at the present time. A very high standard of improvement works is being carried out on the estates I have seen divided in County Galway, but the estimate that is made in some instances is very low, and could not cover the necessary improvement works. A certain number of improvements are neglected for a considerable number of years. I believe that, when an estate is allotted, the improvement works should be finished before the Land Commission take away their gangers and supervisors.

The only other matter about which I wish to speak—and it connects afforestation with land division—is the fact that it appears according to existing regulations the Land Commission cannot migrate persons unless the land they hold is sufficiently good to relieve congestion in that particular area. There is a certain area in County Galway where a considerable amount of land is suitable for afforestation purposes—something close on 1,000 acres.

It is in the parishes of Kilchreest and Kilnadeena. The people who live there have a considerable amount of this land, and they have only very small patches of what is known as arable land. The Forestry Department would, I understand, be quite prepared to carry out an afforestation scheme there, but the fact remains that the Land Commission will not take those people out of that particular district, because they hold that they cannot do so on account of the fact that the holdings which they have are not sufficiently good to relieve congestion there, or give sufficient arable land to people who would be left behind. That is a regulation, I think, which ought to be altered, and altered as speedily as possible in order to enable afforestation work to be carried out. There are thousands of acres in those particular districts which are quite useless for anything except afforestation, and yet apparently the people who live in those areas are going to be compelled to live there for ever. That is a state of affairs which should be remedied in the very near future.

Anois, sul a dtéighidh an díospóireacht níos fuide, ba mhaith liom a chur in iúl don Aire, i bfátha le muintir na Gaeltachta, an buideachas mór atá tuilte aige fán obair íonmholta atá sé a dhéanamh do na daoine seo. Tá súil agam nach ag gabhail í laighead a bheas an obair seo ins an am atá le teacht. Tá moladh mór ag gabhail don Aire fá dtaobh den scéim bhreágh sin atá sé a chur i bhfeidhm, sé sin, ag athrú daoine as an Ghaeltacht agus dhá bhfágáil na suidhe go seásta te ar thalamh shaibhbhir i lár na hÉireann.

B'féidir, amach annseo go dtiocfadh leis seift a dhéanamh le lánmhaineacha óga nach bhfúil teach no talamh aca a thabhairt isteach faoí an scéim seo. Ba mhór a chuideochadh seo le daoine óga ar mhaith leo pósadh ach nach bhfuil dadadh fá n-a gcoinne i ndhiaidh a bpósta ach imeacht as an tír, agus slighe bheatha a bhaint amach imeasg na gcoimhthighigh.

Tá fhios agam go mbeidh beannacht an Tighe seo go léir leis an Aire in gach iarracht a dhéanfhas sé le slighe bheatha mhuintir na Gaeltachta a dhéanamh níos fearr agus níos fiúntaighe agus tá sin beag go leor do na daoine a choinnigh teanga na hÉireann agus spiorad na saoirse beo nuair nach rabh mórán le gnóthú ar cheachtar acu.

I do not wish to delay the debate which has been unduly prolonged already, but a few remarks have been made by some Deputies and I do not think it would be proper to let them pass without giving some sort of reply. On the general policy of the Land Commission and of the Minister I think we are all in agreement, with some exceptions on the opposite benches.

We are all behind you.

On the other hand there are some people on those benches who are in agreement with the Government policy also, as I have noticed, from the debate. I have to take exception also to the slowness of the work of the Land Commission. I come from a county where a great deal of work has been done, but it is also a county where a great deal of work yet remains to be done. With regard to the area I come from, I am highly dissatisfied with the rate of motion of the Land Commission. It has been said that great bodies move slowly. If that be so, the Land Commission must be one of the greatest bodies in existence; it is moving very slowly. I noticed from some of the speeches by Deputies on the opposite benches that there is an allegation of confiscation of land. That is not my experience. An individual case from County Meath has been cited where grave injustice in regard to price was alleged. My experience, all things considered, is that a reasonable price is being offered, and it is in very favourable contrast to the price paid under the 1923 Act under the Cosgrave régime. I have sad experience of that. Time and again I have had communications from people who are still unable to pay the land annuities, people whose land annuities are still altogether too high because of the enormous prices paid for land under that Act. Personally, I think that the present prices are fairly reasonable. I have heard the prices given in definite cases around my area, and I think they are fairly reasonable. Of course, there is Deputy Gorey's alternative of the putting up of money by the State. That brings in another difficulty, and a difficulty which I think should not be introduced. I think that the prices being offered are fairly reasonable. Any higher prices would, in my opinion, make the land too dear on the tenants.

I observe that quite a number of Deputies on the opposite benches seem to think that the people who happen to be tenants should be left in possession, no matter what may happen; in other words, that no matter how they use their land or no matter in how many different places they may have land, it should be left to them in perpetuity. I think that is an entirely ridiculous outlook. Deputy Dillon and other Deputies spoke about the three "F's." One of these "F's" was fixity of tenure, and the presumption is that a person who is paying his rent should not be disturbed at all, no matter what use he makes of the land. If that state of affairs were to be allowed to con-continue, then, so far as the young generation is concerned, they might emigrate or try to find employment in any way they could while thousands of acres would be left with no use being made of them except the growing of thistles and weeds.

The condition of affairs at the present time is not like the condition that existed at the time the people fought for these three "F's." Conditions are entirely different now. The landlords are gone, but in their place have come a great many people who simply were more or less adventurers and who bought up these lands, in many cases with the help of bank money, and who used the lands for nothing except the growing of grass. I know of thousands of acres where even the thistles have not been cut, and the only national purpose, if it could be so called, for which these acres were used was the raising of stock. No employment was given. I know of many cases of over hundreds of acres where there is only one herd employed, generally at starvation wages—one herd and a dog— and where there should be houses and families by the dozen not a single family is being reared. That is a state of affairs that cannot be allowed to continue.

There are other aspects of the Department of Lands with which I should like to deal. The Minister, I know, has taken a very deep interest in his work, and I should like to congratulate him. He is a colleague of my own, but perhaps nobody knows better than I do the interest the Minister has taken in the Department of Lands. I should like to congratulate him in the first instance on raising the number of acres to be given to landless men.

Before the Minister came into office, I think, 22 statue acres was the minimum, and he has raised it to 25. I should also like to congratulate him on the intimate knowledge he has gained in a short time, because I know the knowledge he has of his Department and the great earnestness he has thrown into his work. There were a few statements, to which I referred in the beginning, that astonished me—one was made by Deputy Brennan—and these were to the effect that Fianna Fáil cumainn, or Fianna Fáil secretaries of clubs claimed to have the division of land in their hands. That certainly comes as a shock to me, and I can assure the House that I know the Fianna Fáil cumainn in County Roscommon a thousand times better than Deputy Brennan could possibly know them. Deputy Brennan might be surprised to learn that the views of the Fianna Fáil cumainn and members are quite opposite to Deputy Brennan's view. They hold that—I do not say with any great truth—the opposite is the case: that people of Deputy Brennan's Party have a greater pull in the division of land than the Fianna Fáil clubs have. I have never yet heard—and this is strictly true—a Fianna Fáil secretary or a member of a Fianna Fáil cumann allege or boast that they have any authority whatever in the division of land. I am certainly astonished to hear it, but I can assure the Deputy and the House that the very opposite is the view of Fianna Fáil members and Fianna Fáil cumainn That was one of my reasons for speaking here this evening.

I think that Deputy Brodrick went more or less on the same lines. Now, if there is one complaint more than another that I have to make about the Land Commission, it is that there appears to me to be too much secrecy altogether at headquarters. The Land Commission, I suppose, make reports in favour of the acquisition of lands, but the public do not see these reports and they know nothing about them. All these reports are considered in camera and the decisions of the Land Commission are also in camera and nobody knows anything about them. There is altogether too much secrecy in this matter. I agree that it is not very easy to make certain matters in the Land Commission public, and I also agree that, in nine cases out of ten, the inspectors of the Land Commission do act very fairly, but there are exceptions, and if there were not quite so much secrecy about the matter some of these exceptions could be avoided. There are deserving cases which do not get land and there are other less deserving cases that get land. There is nothing like the truth, and I say that if there were less secrecy about the operations of the Land Commission, as they sit here in Dublin, it would be much better for everybody concerned.

Another matter to which I should like to draw the Minister's attention is in connection with the division of bogs. There is a great necessity in various parts of the country for the division of bogs and the making of accommodation roads and the draining of those bogs—an urgent necessity. The making of roads and draining and so on is done very often in connection with the division of land, but apart from the question of the division of land there is the matter of these bogs, and I think the Minister would do well to urge the rapid division of those bogs and the making of accommodation roads into them. That is all I have to say in connection with this Vote.

Quite a lot has been said on this Vote, perhaps too much has been said on it already. I really think that the Minister has learned a lot from what has been said. He is playing a policy of hide and go seek. When something arises and he is asked to do something here in this House with regard to some particular matter, Oh, he cannot do anything; and ultimately one asks oneself what has the Minister thought at all? A number of things were said here by three Fianna Fáil Deputies that deserve attention—one is the last speech to which we have just listened —and the three speeches hang on the one, although put in a different way. Along with the one to which we have just listened, we had another from Deputy Victory, and, of course, a masterpiece from Deputy Kennedy.

I do not know whether or not Deputy Kennedy owns any land—I do not think he does—but if he does, it is all right, apparently, doing anything you like on the other fellow's land so long as you do not touch Deputy Kennedy's land. Of course, there is hope for this country yet if the Minister should resign and make Deputy Kennedy Minister for Lands. Deputy Kennedy thinks that both the Government and the Minister are just taking the land and bandying it about the way they should. Running through these three speeches you have the philosophy that it is a regrettable thing in this country that land happened to be vested in anybody; that it is a rather unfortunate thing and that men to whom land is given by the Land Commission under their division scheme should be treated for a considerable number of years—for at least ten years and possibly for 20 years—as a sort of ticket-of-leave men; that they should not be vested tenants until, I suppose, they have proved to the local gentleman, such as Deputy Kennedy, that they are worthy of the land. I wonder does the Minister in the future intend to introduce a Bill into this House which will nullify the effect of the vesting of land? I heard some whispers of that. Of course, if Deputy Kennedy had his way, that Bill would be introduced immediately, and then we could have Deputy Kennedy appointed an inspector under the Land Commission to decide as to whether or not, for example, Deputy Gorey was working his land in a proper manner.

"Spotter" Kennedy!

Yes. Then, what does Deputy O'Rourke mean by telling the House that things are changed now from the days of the landlords? They are changed, but they have not been changed without considerable effort. Is the philosophy of Deputy O'Rourke that all that effort should be nullified?

Not at all—only the abuses in it.

The abuses? Who is to define the abuses?

The schoolmasters.

We are here for that purpose.

This House should make clear to the country that there is no new philosophy with regard to the occupation and ownership of land. Deputy Kennedy told this House that the giving of land was the greatest gift the State had made. Let me tell Deputy Kennedy at once, and without equivocation, that the land of this country belongs to the people that own it and that, in so far as the Government of this country or any government in this country hold that land, they only hold it as trustees for and on behalf of the people during the time it is passing through their hands.

Do not the banks own a lot of it?

I will deal with that matter too. There should be an end put to this sort of stuff that we have had in this country for the last five or six years. There are insinuations and implications by Deputies and their supporters in the country so that the atmosphere has been created that the occupiers of the land do not own it. There is a subterranean campaign being carried on that the vesting of land does not constitute an absolute title. I wish to tell the House and the people of the country who are vested tenants that they are the owners of the land. If any Bill is introduced to question that right we will see about it when it comes.

Even if they do not pay rent and rates?

I am dealing with people who own property and discharge their obligations. That is implied in what I say. There should be none of this side-wind business about the national interest. The national interest is to place the people on the land, make them absolute owners of the land, put their heart and soul into the land, and not ruin this country as has been done for the past six years. We want to have these things clearly, definitely and emphatically stated in this House. The Land Commission, according to Deputy Kennedy, is the most stupid institution in this State. He said: "Most Government Departments in all countries are regarded as stupid, and the most stupid Department in this country is the Land Commission." That is reported in column 122 of volume 71 of the Official Reports. Why is the Land Commission stupid in Deputy Kennedy's eyes. Because it has not justified, I suppose, all the wild speeches which he made in his constituency during the last ten years. The speech which we had from Deputy Kennedy last week was to justify himself and to get it published in the local papers that he spoke in the Dáil and called the Land Commission stupid. The Minister, according to Deputy Kennedy, is a decent fellow. Does Deputy Kennedy not know that the Minister is responsible for the Land Commission, that the Minister is the Land Commission, and that, so far as there are any faults, they are the faults of the Minister.

He would not like to think that.

That is a terrible charge.

I know the Land Commission. I think I tramped in and out of it as often as any Deputy. I have heard a lot here about inspectors being tampered with in the division of land and otherwise. I know the senior inspector of the Land Commission in Donegal for some 20 years. He was an employee of the old C.D.B. I have never spoken or written to that man about land in my life, and I never will. I must say that I do not know how he did his job, but I heard no complaint with regard to the land divided in Donegal. There was general satisfaction. What he did, I think, was that he picked out the men who were reared on the land and worked on the land and he gave them the land and, in the main, all the allottees, so far as I can learn, gave satisfaction. It would be a very good thing for the House and the country if there was an end of this bandying about. We know that whether it happened or not that impression was given with regard to the division of land in the last five or six years. This thing should be left in the hands of these men.

Deputy Kennedy went on to say: "I certainly resent officials going down to my county and going out with the local Fine Gael agents on bogs and land and passing everyone else by. The thing should be done in an official way." I wonder how these inspectors happened to meet all Fine Gael supporters. Were all the people in West meath Fine Gael supporters, or has Deputy Kennedy no supporters? I wonder how this inspector gets his card marked that he can march up to some Fine Gael supporter, and how he knew he was a Fine Gael supporter. I wonder what is the official way. The official way, of course, is to get your card marked in Merrion Street before you go out, get a list of local cumainn, put it in your pocket, and go down to Westmeath and call on them and say "Do you want any land? If so, send for Deputy Kennedy and get a list, and we will parcel it out." I think the sooner the Minister stops playing hide and-seek the better; that when these gentlemen begin to make themselves busy he will clear them out and put an end to this nonsense.

Then Deputy Kennedy went on "One thing that struck me in connection with the speakers from the Opposition Benches was that one was trying to outdo the other in praise of the officials." I said what I had to say about the officials. I did not say it to themselves. The Minister is responsible for the Department, and I think it is deplorable that a Deputy should come into the House and try to segregate them and take the responsibility off the proper shoulders. The responsibility is on the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary. The Parliamentary Secretary has taken no active part, so far as I can see, in this Department. We hear about the Minister being a fine fellow, but when the Minister has to do something, of course he has nothing to do with that. The next day it is something else, and then he becomes a very nice fellow. Whatever faults there are in the Land Commission, they are the faults of the Minister. It is time to stop this attacking of officials and being afraid to attack the Minister. I am not making any attack on the Minister. His own Party are attacking now, because he did not put an end to the nonsense carried on during the last five or six years. He should call them together and tell them there must be an end to this nonsense. We are now the Government. We have to administer, and we have to administer this and every other Department according to law.

Deputy O'Rourke praised the Minister for having increased the area of farms for landless men from 20 to 25 acres. I had been trying in this House to raise the area of these things, if possible, up to 50 acres. I think, if it was possible at all, that every man should get a farm of 50 acres. Unfortunately, in this country we have a limited amount of land but, at the same time, I dread to think, in the division of land, that irrespective of who it is done by, or what Government, this House should be creating and this Department should be creating a new congested problem. I have grave doubts as to the wisdom of giving a man 20 acres of land of the type on which he will have to carry the equipment of a large farm. I think ultimately that that would create a new congested problem in this country and our last position would be worse than the first. I did not know that the Minister was endeavouring to increase or in fact that he had increased the area of these farms to 25 acres. I still think it is too small. We should not do this thing purely for the sake of doing something. We are doing this thing as a national question. We are doing this in order to put families into the way of earning a livelihood and being in a position to earn that livelihood. The weapon we put into their hands should be effective. It should be, as far as it is humanly possible, normally effective, that is to say, it should have within itself the means of maintaining a man, his wife and family economically. I am afraid that on a farm of land of 20 acres he would have to carry two horses. I take it that the position there will not be as it is in the areas where these people come from. In the first place these people did not want any horse at all. Secondly they might have to keep one horse and then they did what they call down the country "ploughing in "—in other words ploughing with a neighbour, two horses are put together and plough one man's land and then the other man's land, and harrow and finish it, but a lot of the small farms had no call for it at all; it is done by spade labour. I cannot see that a farm of 20 acres could carry two horses or carry the requisite amount of stock to produce the wealth, even the very frugal wealth, to maintain a man and his wife and family and pay rates and taxes. What I would like to aim at is this—offering a man 40 to 50 acres; I would ask him if he were willing to take it; place him there; make him a vested tenant as soon as I could. I would give him no dole of any kind. I would say, "There you are; there is an opportunity for you; everything is in your hands to make good. There is a means of making good. It is in your own hands to do so." I am still sceptical about the possibility of the success of the scheme. I think it should not be done purely for the sake of doing something.

A lot has been said about the present organisation of the Land Commission. I drew attention to it last year and the year before, observing what has been going on in the country, and also watching what has been going on in the Land Commission. Some said that it was going too fast; others that it was going too slow; others that there was chaos in the Department. If all or any of these things are true the fault of it lies with the people in this House and their friends outside. They have attempted to play hari kari with the wealth of this country because there is no wealth in this State only the land, and in order to get votes these people have played hari kari with that wealth.

What is hari kari? I did not know they divided land in Japan.

Then they have got this idea into their heads, that of course any farm can be taken over. Some man may have a farm, and his neighbour may tell him something is wrong with it, and they write up to the Land Commission and ask them to take it over. The Land Commission have to take some steps in regard to that, although the thing may be obviously ridiculous. They give the idea that of course they will settle the whole ownership of land, not actually do it, but give the impression that it can be done, and there is nothing worse than that. Inspectors will go down to some of these farms to see if it is possible that they can be taken over. Time is wasted and, of course, obviously from the beginning the thing could not come to anything. The Land Commission, when these busybodies get going, have to pay attention to them, or it is probable they may get a rap across the knuckles from the Minister, or something like that.

The sooner that we all steady down in this country the better. There is no use talking about what happened in the past. The past is past and there is no use talking about it. It is to-morrow that counts. I would ask the Deputies of this House to use their influence, of themselves and with their supporters, to get the country to settle down and get it into their heads that the sooner the people of this country and the tenant farmers of this country are led to believe, what they did believe and what is actually true, that they are the owners of the land, and that, as long as they discharge their obligations, nobody can dispossess them, the better it will be for everyone, and the Land Commission will work more smoothly. Every sort of ridiculous fad with regard to land, taking over of land, inspection of land, inspection of 30 acres, ten acres, 15 acres and 20 acres, inspectors going down to see if they could be taken over, is ridiculous and useless for any purpose. Such farms could not be divided.

Now, rather serious comment has been made here as to the increasing expenditure of this Department. Really, one finds it rather difficult to understand the increase in the expenditure in relation to, we will say, the amount of wages that is paid out, because there is no substantial increase in the vesting of land, and, of course, the machinery of sub-division was there, and, of course, there is no abnormal increase in the division of land. It seems rather difficult to explain the increase in expenditure. I do not know really where it has taken place. I take it, it has taken place owing to this torture of the Land Commission, and I suppose of the Minister, by claims for inspection and all this sort of thing to see are A.B,, C.D,, X.Y. carrying on their farms in the way they should be. Did anybody ever hear anything like it? They go down to see is he working his farm properly. What is this thing of working a farm properly? Who has to come to the conclusion in that? I hope I will never hear that uttered in this House again. Nobody knows that. Take two farms in one townland. In regard to how they should be worked they would be as different as day from night, owing to the nature of the subsoil and of the surface itself. Then we are to have inspectors, more inspectors, to go down to see is A.B., C.D., or X.Y. working his farm properly. The man to know how to work a farm is the man living on it. He knows the nature of the surface soil and the subsoil. He is the man to know what is best for it. I am glad to see Deputy O'Reilly in his speech has made a somersault on that matter. Deputy Kennedy, I hope, will come next. Of course, an easy way to get him would be to make him Minister for Lands. Everything would be gay then in the Land Commission.

Make Deputy McMenamin a judge.

There would be no delays if Deputy Kennedy were Minister. Really I think it would be a wise thing for the Minister to tell the House, give an explanation, as to the increase in the cost of the Land Commission, practically three times, in fact over three times what it was.

I see in the Estimate an item which, if I were so disposed, would give me malicious delight—a sum of £12,000 as the cost of the collection branch. I remember when the 1933 Act was going through, I had the audacity and the presumption to suggest that the old system of collection should be continued. I knew something about it and about how it worked, and I thought that the machinery was as satisfactory as it was humanly possible to create. I queried the new proposal and a number of Deputies opposite—I will not name them— howled across at me: "Oh, you are speaking for the lawyers." I wonder who is getting the loot now? In that year the collection cost £4,000 and last year was £12,000. There is another item of £1,400 odd which was, I take it, for costs outstanding, but the cost of this branch has increased from £4,000 to £12,000, and I was pleading for the lawyers—a crook of a lawyer pleading for his kindred—five years ago when I thought that the machinery for collection then was as good and as efficient as was humanly possible.

Another case has been referred to here and the Minister will perhaps reply: "I have no power and I can do nothing"; but where there is a wrong, where there is an injustice, it should be righted, and I shall not be satisfied with the Minister merely saying that he has no power. If he has not got the power, let him come in here and get the power——

Hear, hear! Now you are coming to it.

——because if injustice has been done, and it has been proved here that injustice has been done, it has been done under a law passed by this House and the Minister should come in here at the first opportunity and right the wrong. What is this case? It is worth while returning to it and amplifying what was said about it. It is a case in, I think, County Westmeath. A man died in 1925 and the Estate Duty Office assessed the value of his farm for estate duty purposes at £3,500, if my memory is correct. The widow—it was not stated here whether or not there were any children—put up the farm for sale and refused an offer of £3,000. Ultimately, the Land Commission took it over and that woman got £5. Those are the central facts of this case. Let nothing else come in it. A Government Department charged that woman estate duty on £3,500 after the death of her husband. She put the farm up for auction and refused an offer of £3,000 and the land Commission takes it over and hands that woman £5. Is there a wrong there? Obviously, there is a wrong and a grave injustice. Everybody except the widow who owned the land has been settled with. She could have gone into the Land Commission and put an end to the fee farm grant under which the land was held and could have brought the land under the Land Act. The purchase money would, of course, have to be redeemed. But in this case, we pay off the landlord and give him all the money that is due to him; we give the Land Commission what is due to them; we pay rates, rent and everything else; and we turn to the poor widow and we give her £5 for assets which one Government Department said were worth £3,500. I presume she paid the duty, wherever she got it. I know where the defect is. It is in the law and we here are parties to passing a law which does that grave injustice to one class and transfers a benefit to another class.

At the present moment, Deputies are assembled to discuss administration and not legislation.

I only made a passing reference, Sir, to where the snag is in this matter. I think all sides of the House would welcome a measure that would put an end to the committing of injustices of that kind because it is a grave injustice. Any human being looking at that as a transaction between man and man and particularly between the Government and a citizen, will call that by a name which I do not want to use. That is one case that was brought up here, but what about all the other cases that were not brought up?

Give us a few more.

I could give plenty of them. The people who are put on this land are the people who will benefit. Of course, the State benefits because the State should pay off both the tenant and the landlord, the people representing the owners who hold the rights under the fee farm grant. Why should the owner of the fee farm grant be fully paid? Why should there not be some equity in this? Why should the State demand the last pound of flesh from that widow, and get it, and a few years afterwards say: "Your assets are worth only £5." I am sure that every Deputy and every right-thinking person outside will agree that steps should be taken forthwith to remedy that position and to do justice to that woman, if she is alive, and to others of her type. We are going to make a new Heaven for one class of citizens—the people to whom the Land Commission gives the land. Very well, but it should not be done by robbing somebody else.

A number of issues are arising with regard to the taking over of estates and turbary rights attached to them by the Land Commission. The plot of bog allotted to a tenant when the land was vested in him is probably now all used, but that portion of the annuity due in respect of the bog is still being charged although the tenant has no bog. There is a contract there, firstly, that the Land Commission will give turbary to the tenant, and secondly, that the tenant shall be charged an annuity for it. The Land Commission are insisting that the amount of the annuity apportioned on the bog must be paid. I am afraid that matter will give the Minister and future Ministers much trouble, because it is a very serious matter. I think if the Department looked round a little they would find bogs adjoining. These people who want a plot of bog might as well be living in the heart of Dublin, because nobody will give it to them. The portion they got from the Land Commission has been used up and nobody will give them any more. It is a terrible hardship. Obviously these people are unable to buy coal, and if they are to have turbary to supply the house with fuel for the year they will be charged a big price for it. I should like the Minister to investigate the matter. I am afraid I cannot suggest legislation, but I think something could be done if the Minister would seriously direct his attention to the subject.

There is then the question of arrears, which has become a very substantial matter in this State. I hope this whole matter is a closed book for all of us. Regardless of what the cause of it was, it is all over, and we should see to it that such a thing will not occur in the future. The increase in the amount of the arrears is certainly a very startling thing. There were practically no arrears due prior to 1933. The three years' arrears that were due prior to the passing of the 1933 Act were funded and all arrears prior to that were wiped out. The present arrears are an accumulation since the passing of the 1933 Act, and they are very serious. There has been a lot of badinage in the House as to the cause of the arrears. Let us be honest about it. In the main those arrears have become due because the people were unable to pay as a result of the Government's policy. The circumstances that existed during the last few years are happily at an end, and let us hope that the farmers will get some opportunity to become prosperous again.

It is regrettable that these men were driven into the position that they were unable to pay their debts. I heard speeches made by the chairman of the political Party of Fianna Fáil, Deputy Maguire, as to how these arrears became due. I am sure that Deputy Maguire, coming from a county something like my own, knows well that perfectly honest men who would not owe a shilling to anybody have not to-day, as the saying goes, a four-footed beast on the farm. I have tried to arrange with the Land Commission to allow these men an opportunity of putting some stock on the land. I arranged that no beast would be seized when they let the land, and I promised that when they got some money they would have it sent to pay off some portion of the debt they owed to the Land Commission. I did all I could to allow them to carry on while times were bad. It is a cruel thing that these men have been reduced to such circumstances. The best test of their honesty is that under all the Land Acts they paid every penny that they had to pay. The men you accuse of not discharging their obligations are not any different from your fathers. Give them an opportunity and they will discharge all their obligations. It reminds me of the campaign in the House of Lords when the Land Acts were going through. The charge was made against the Irish tenant farmers that if the English Government gave them credit they would not repay. The Irish tenant farmers proved how false that suggestion was. Wherever there is a charge of that sort against the tenant farmers of this country, I will deny it.

You are giving them £10,000,000 now.

The less said about that the better. With regard to the collection, I must admit that the Land Commission have had a desperate job; it must have been a frightful job. They have been desperately helpful and sympathetic. In many cases it was next to impossible to make an effort. Under terribly difficult circumstances the Land Commission behaved very well towards the tenants and the tenants should appreciate it, and at the first available opportunity they should discharge their obligations. It will be necessary to give many farmers some help in order to get going again. I should like to put an end to the impression caused abroad with regard to the cost of this thing. The impression is that the cost is out of proportion to what has been accomplished. There is some explanation for that and I think the Minister should give it. We have all these new schemes of division and sub-division, we have the taking over of farms and more inspectors have to be appointed. There should be an end to that and the Minister should take his courage in his hands and say, to what the people call "these wild men," that there must be an end to the gallop. If he does that, he will get the approval of the House and the country.

With regard to the transfers to the Gaeltacht colonies, I should like to know what the Minister proposes to do with the plots from which the colonists have been removed. A very large number of them are pretty worthless. They are terribly small, only small patches in between the rocks and things like that. On the other hand, on some of the small patches there are very good houses. The sons and daughters went to America and sent home money to construct houses for the old people. Will the Minister let the houses to those people who remain in the district and who at the moment have very bad houses—workmen of some kind, carpenters and other tradesmen? Let us hope that when we meet again on this Vote, the Land Commission will be operating under more favourable conditions than at present and that the Minister will not get the drubbing that he has got on this occasion. I hope when the Vote next comes before the House conditions will be better and that the Land Commission will not be charged with stupidity as it has been to-day. Personally, I might say that I have never met with any stupidity in the Land Commission or in any of the staff. The first man I meet when I go into the Land Commission knows more about land than all the Deputies of the House put together, myself included.

The Minister to conclude.

I am sure I will not be expected to deal with all the points which have been raised, because we have had a record debate, and a record number of points put forward. I wonder whether I should begin at the beginning or at the end. I suppose I had better start at the beginning. In the course of the debate and when Deputy McMenamin was speaking, Deputy Davin said he was here long before the people on this side of the House were here at all. I must say that Deputy Davin did not make the sort of speech that might be said to be worthy of a man with such a long experience. Deputy O'Higgins dealt with one part of the Deputy's speech, and I would like to deal with another part. Deputy Davin told us on the opening day of the debate on this Vote that he got a letter that very morning from one of his constituents, complaining of the conduct of one of the forestry inspectors in one of the local schemes. Obviously he had not time to verify what was in that complaint, but he took it as being correct. Whatever excuse there might be for a Deputy with a short experience in the House, taking, without verifying, a complaint made about an official, there was no excuse at all for the action of Deputy Davin. The Deputy took as correct a charge by an aggrieved person against a public official. A Deputy should examine them before he comes to the conclusion that every complaint he gets is justified. In this particular case the Deputy, certainly, did not behave as a Deputy with his long experience in the House might have been expected to behave. He also did another thing which a Deputy with a sense of discretion would not do. He accused of something like espionage during the Black and Tan régime a person who could be identified. If that was not what the Deputy meant, that was the impression that was created here. That was a most reprehensible thing on the part of Deputy Davin. Taking the debate as a whole, Deputy Davin's speech was the worst speech to which I listened.

The most damaging.

Mr. Boland

Not damaging to me or to the Land Commission, but to the Deputy himself. Anyone who takes the trouble to read that speech will find that it will do no damage to me or to the Government. The only person it can damage is Deputy Davin himself. It was certainly a speech unworthy of a Deputy with long experience in this House.

Deal with the wages question first.

Mr. Boland

I will deal with everything that Deputy Davin has raised, though I may not be able to deal with every point. On the question of wages I can only say what I told the Deputy here already, and that is that the whole question of forestry wages is under consideration.

How long?

Mr. Boland

The Deputy asked me to make it clear that some outside body or committee was not dictating to the Government. What he insinuates is not a fact. There is an Advisory Committee which advises the Government as to the rate of pay in the different areas. It is entirely a matter for the Government themselves to decide what wages they are to pay. I am not shelving that responsibility at all. It is my responsibility. I tell the Deputy that that question of wages is under review at the moment. More than that I cannot say.

How long has it been under consideration?

Mr. Boland

It was under consideration a short time before the Deputy raised it himself.

Has it not been under consideration since 1935?

Mr. Boland

I am not trying to deceive the Deputy or to deceive the House.

The Minister cannot. It is on the records.

Mr. Boland

I will not attempt to deceive the House about it. It was a question of differentiation between the rates paid in Leix and elsewhere. That matter was under consideration before Deputy Davin raised it here I then sent it for examination to the Advisory Committee on wages and when we get a report from the committee, the Government will take a decision. No one will doubt then whose responsibility it is.

When is it going to be decided?

Mr. Boland

I cannot say.

Is the Minister responsible for the wages paid?

Mr. Boland

The responsibility in regard to the matter of wages is not entirely for my Department, but I am responsible as well as the other members of the Government for the decision taken. It is not entirely a matter for my Department, as the Deputy ought to know, considering the long experience he has had in this House. I am doing what I can to have a decision on that question expedited. The Deputy was one of the few Deputies in the House who insisted that there was discrimination in the division of the lands and in other things. He said that information was given to members of my Party in his constituency and not given to him. That is entirely incorrect. There is no foundation for that charge. I get complaints from members of the Fianna Fáil organisation somewhat on the same lines as the Deputy made here, complaints that people who belong to other political organisations are getting land while those who belong to the Fianna Fáil organisation are not. All this, I think, will convince an impartial observer or listener that taking things in the main a fair deal is meted out to everybody.

I made that charge in one case and only in one case. I am now in a position to say that I know the Minister has been asked to hold an inquiry in that particular case. Is he going to do so? The inspector in that case went to the wives of the applicants and asked them to say with what political party their husband was associated.

Mr. Boland

I do not believe a bit of that. I do not believe that there is to-day any inspector in the Land Commission who is so stupid as to do a thing like that.

Has the Minister been asked to hold an inquiry?

Mr. Boland

I would not think of holding an inquiry into a thing like that. There is to-day no inspector in Ireland who is so stupid as to do that sort of thing. In the beginning there may have been such an inspector. In some cases the complaint is that they only gave land to the Fianna Fáil people and in others that they only gave land to the Fine Gael people. I dare say Labour gets a turn, too. Taking it all round, the general belief is that the junior inspectors are all people of discretion. If not discreet by nature they very soon learn to be discreet. I say that really Deputy Davin has not covered himself with glory in the line he has taken here. It was no credit to him or to the House to find that a man of his long experience should behave as he has behaved.

Deputy Davin and also other Deputies raised questions with regard to giving allotments to cottage holders. I think it is a fact that since 1932 a greater number of cottage tenants have got accommodation plots than was the case formerly. I am not quite certain that that policy has been justified. I would like to see every cottier or cottager getting four or five acres of land so as to enable him to keep a cow and be able to have a bit of tillage. I think, however, it will be found that unfortunately a great number of cottagers who have got the land have not been in a position to work these allotments. I do not say that that was through any fault of their own. But they have not been able to take advantage of the plots they have. A lot of these plots have gone derelict. I am sure that neither Deputy Davin nor any other Deputy is going to ask the Government to continue giving out land except where they are satisfied that the land so given already is being properly worked. At the time when these men were given land it was the belief of the Department that they would work it. Otherwise the land would not have been given to them. In future, cottagers will get land where they are considered to be in a position to work the land. There is no objection to giving a cottager four or five acres of land so as to enable him to keep a cow and to have a little tillage. I think these were all the points that Deputy Davin raised. If there are any other points the Deputy wants me to deal with now, I am prepared to deal with them.

I asked the Minister to justify in one case the giving of land to an old age pensioner without a family and ignoring the claims of a cottage tenant with a big family. Is that genuine?

Mr. Boland

I will admit that the Deputy wrote to me about that, but I have not got sufficient details to deal with that case now.

I have a copy of the letter I sent.

Mr. Boland

I am not in a position to deal with that case now although I got a report on it.

Can you defend it?

Mr. Boland

It would depend on the circumstances. It is not so cut-and-dried as Deputy Davin would try to make it appear. I can assure the Deputy that those things are not done without every consideration.

If the Minister will reply to the letter, it will satisfy me.

Mr. Boland

I shall reply to the letter all right, but I should like to deal with it now. When one side gets publicity, the reply should get it, too. Would the name be Duignan?

Mr. Boland

Anyway, I cannot put my hand on it at the moment, so I shall pass from it. I shall have to content myself with replying to the Deputy. In regard to bog reclamation about which the Deputy also spoke, not much is being done in that line. A few schemes have been undertaken but, generally speaking, big schemes of bog reclamation have not been undertaken. The time of the Land Commission is taken up with the division of land and much of it will also be given over to the rearrangement of congested holdings in the West. It is principally for that reason that a big recruitment of staff has taken place. The Cluais Valley scheme, suspended by the last Government, is going ahead again. There is also a small scheme in Tirconaill and when the result of that experiment is ascertained, probably a bigger experiment will be undertaken; but for the moment, very much work is not being done in the way of reclamation. Deputies will know that grants for reclamation of land are dealt with by the Department of Agriculture.

In regard to particular estates about which Deputy Davin asked some questions and to which he also referred in the debate, I cannot add anything to what I told him in the answers I gave to these questions. The acquisition of these estates is generally held up by an adverse legal decision, but it is hoped that that will be dealt with in the new Bill which is to be shortly introduced.

I should like the Minister to answer my question in regard to the employment of men on forestry schemes. Will he explain why single men are being retained to the exclusion of married men with families?

Mr. Boland

I did not intend to deal with that until the Forestry Vote was reached, but, as the matter has been raised, I might as well deal with it now. I have had that matter inquired into, and the charge made by Deputy Davin, or which Deputy Davin took up so quickly, is denied by the official concerned. He was supposed to have said that he fought the Labour Party before and that he would fight them again.

That is not the case about which I asked the Minister now.

Mr. Boland

This staff is recruited through the labour exchange. When it came to the seasonal discharge of men, which, as every Deputy knows who knows anything about the matter, takes place every year, the forester in charge decided that certain men were better workers than others, and he decided to keep on the men he thought were the best workers. I do not see any way of getting over that. If someone on the staff superior to that particular man were to tell him that he should have kept on certain men rather than others, and if the work afterwards were not done as well as it might be, the forester in charge would have a legitimate complaint and he could say, "If I had been left the staff I considered best, my work would be better." That is the only possible way you can deal with these schemes. The fact is that these men who were kept on were, in the opinion of the forester on the spot, the best men for the work. The men were originally taken on at the labour exchange. The principal factor in deciding whether a man will be taken on, apart from fitness, is how many dependents he has. If he is a married man with a family, he gets a preference over single men, and if unmarried men were taken on through the labour exchange their circumstances must be deserving. If the forester finds that these men are better workers, when the seasonal discharge takes place he keeps them on. I have nothing further to say on this matter. That is the only justification I have to offer, that if you are going to get the work done, you must give some discretion to the man in charge.

I am not raising that issue. I am raising the issue of why single men are given a preference over married men.

Mr. Boland

I say they are not. You must give the man in charge some discretion. If it happens that he puts off a certain man, because he does not consider him as good as another whom he retains, we cannot blame him. The officer in charge tries to get the best men for the work. It is unfortunate that the name of any person should be mentioned in this connection but when the name is mentioned by the Deputy there is no way out of it. You must leave a certain amount of discretion to the person whose duty it is to see the job done. There is no way out of that in any walk of life.

I shall pass on to what Deputy Roddy said. He complained about the increased expense in comparison with the amount of land divided recently. Surely Deputy Roddy, from his experience in the Land Commission, ought to know that moneys spent on improvements are often expended in respect of land acquired a year or so before? Housing and other improvements do not take place in the year in which the land is acquired. If he is looking at the amount of land divided during the past year or at the cost of acquiring land, he should relate the extra cost to the land acquired a couple of years before. He also complained that it was not set out clearly in the Estimate under what sub-head provision was made for housing.

Housing loans.

Mr. Boland

That is in the Improvements Section.

Is that included in the Improvements sub-head?

Mr. Boland

Yes.

There is no note in the Land Commission Vote to indicate that.

Mr. Boland

As to the cost of collecting, I did not boast of the state of the collection. I must admit that it was not good, but what I do say is that there has been a distinct improvement. Deputy Roddy will be pleased to know that since that statement was made up, from the 31st January to 31st March, £260,000 extra has been collected. While I am on the question of collection, some Deputies raised the matter of withdrawing warrants. All I can say is that it would be impossible to have a general policy of withdrawing warrants or anything of that kind. I think everybody will, however, admit that where individuals make any case at all, the Collection Department is always willing to listen to them.

To say that they should simply have a policy of not trying to collect the money at all would be impossible. We would then find that we would get no money in. One of the easiest things to do is to ask people not to pay anything. That is not confined to one Party or to one side. It is the easiest thing in the world to subscribe to. The Land Bank cases have been almost all disposed of, and there are very few left. That is the reason the amount is shown for that item. As Deputy Roddy and other Deputies raised questions about the Gaeltacht colonies I had better deal with them. He said that we were not doing what we should do, taking bigger migrants. We are taking both classes. Where the Land Commission can get big migrants to leave congested areas, they try to induce them to leave. In addition, they started a policy of migrating small dwellers from congested areas so as to relieve congestion there. There have been only two schemes so far, and there was a hold up in them to see how the new migrants were shaping. I admit that it will take some time before the full effects will be seen, naturally, more than two or three years. At the same time, I cannot agree that after two or three years we cannot see how people are likely to get on. I have got a very detailed report about all the migrants in the Gaeltacht colonies, and I certainly think it is a very edifying one. As some one suggested, I would like to get a bus and to bring Deputies down there. I seriously suggest to any Deputy interested that he should go down to Gibbstown or Rathcarne to see how things are going on. I think they are doing very well. We heard about some migrants going to England and to other places for work. That is so, I am sure, but it is not true in many cases, as far as I know, that the head of the house goes. There are very big families there, and, as everyone knows, no matter how big a holding is it will not maintain all the members of it when they become adults. The elder members are bound to leave, and that is what happened at Gibbstown and Rathcarne. They went where they could get work. If there is work in England they go there, and if there is work in Dublin they come here. That happens on big farms of 200 or 300 acres, where there are large families. The only difference is that big families are more numerous in congested districts. I think County Meath people should not object to the infusion of new blood. As far as the Irish language is concerned, I think it will be maintained. The fact that there are so many families there, and that they have got so much encouragement is bound, I think, to have a very good effect from the language point of view.

There is another aspect to be considered by those who talk about the extra cost involved there compared with the case of landless men. It has to be borne in mind that landless men are giving up nothing, while these people are, and are also being torn away from places they knew in order to enable their neighbours to be relieved. Deputy McMenamin asked what would be done with such land. It will be used to the best advantage amongst those who are left behind. I think there will be a re-arrangement policy in some districts where houses are good and that they will be used for other tenants. The problem of relieving acute congestion in the west, and in congested areas, is being properly tackled. There is no other way of tackling this overdue problem except by a rearrangement of congested holdings and by migrating families from congested areas. If for no other reason than that it is justified. That work was neglected by the last Government and by this Government up to last year. There was too much anxiety to divide a lot of land. I think we will have to face the problem that is crying out for solution, or otherwise leave it largely unsolved. We are determined that land will be allocated in these areas, but I hope they will be left there until there is a complete re-arrangement of policy or, as Deputy Gorey suggested, until we conquer more land, as the Germans and the Japs are doing. As far as I could gather from Deputy Gorey, he thinks we have too big a population here. That is the only conclusion I could come to.

You will have too much of a problem.

Mr. Boland

In my opinion, if the land is properly worked when divided we can have at least three times the present population living in this country. Instead of that, I think this is the most sparsely populated country in Europe. As to the question of land being properly worked, I remind Deputies that that was not introduced by this Government, but was in the Land Act of 1923. It was introduced then when it was a question of resuming holdings of tenanted lands and also in the Act of 1931, Section 44, in cases like Mrs. Connolly's. If land was worked according to proper methods of husbandry it could be admitted to the benefits of the Act. Otherwise it could not be. What were proper methods of husbandry and who was to decide that question was settled then. I can tell the Deputy that the same procedure and the same method of inquiry as to whether the land was worked in accordance with proper methods of husbandry have not changed in one iota. The policy is the same, and Deputies on the opposite benches cannot throw any blame on us in connection with it that does not belong to them. So far as that question is concerned the procedure is the same and, very largely, the same individuals are deciding it. Deputy Cosgrave asked what I was doing for the money I was drawing from the State, and what the Parliamentary Secretary was doing. I must say that I did not think that a nice way for an ex-President to approach this matter. I think, to say the least, we are doing as much—I will not say that we are doing more—as his Minister and Parliamentary Secretary did.

If the Deputy thought it fit for ten years to maintain a Minister for Lands and a Parliamentary Secretary, I do not know what fault he has to find with the present Government for doing the same thing, except that he thinks the present Minister and Parliamentary Secretary unfit. The Deputy did not say that. To my mind, he also asked an extraordinary question. I could understand a city man like myself, who had no experience of conditions in the country, asking, but I cannot understand the Deputy asking about the difference in rents paid by town dwellers and by men in the country for houses. If it was only a city man who had nothing to do with land raised the question, I could understand it. Surely a man who was in charge for years should not ask a question like that. I was really surprised. He raised a case that occurred in County Meath.

I might say that the basis upon which the price of land is fixed now is the same as was laid down in the 1923 Act, that it should be fair both to the owner of the land and to the Land Commission. That was the basis reported on. It certainly looks a bad case, and is a bad case, but there is more in it than Deputy McMenamin admitted. He says that there are only three things to be considered, but I have to consider more than three things. In fact, the lady herself made the first move, and asked to be given the benefit of the Land Acts. Following that an inspection was held. It is laid down in Section 44 of the Act passed by the last Government, in which Deputy Roddy was a Parliamentary Secretary, that the land must be worked "in accordance with the proper methods of husbandry," and that otherwise the people concerned are not entitled to the benefits of the Land Act. It was found, by whatever standard is laid down, that the land held by this lady was not being worked in accordance with those methods. As a matter of fact, the land had become derelict. There had been no manuring done, the drains were choked up, and the land was being let from year to year. The income that was being derived from the land was a minus quantity. As far as I can gather, the outgoings were more than the income.

It is quite true that a certain figure was offered for the land in 1925, but I submit that what has been said on that is true of other things as well as of land, and that if a person has property and allows it to become derelict that person cannot expect to get very much for it after 12 years of such usage. As I have said, the price was calculated on the basis laid down in the Act passed by the last Administration.

Does not the Minister know that the phrase "proper methods of husbandry" was merely introduced into that Act to enable a tenant to purchase a holding under a certain title from the landlord, and so bring it in under the terms of the Land Act?

Mr. Boland

I know that if land is being set, if it is being neglected and let go derelict, with the drains choked and with no manuring being done, and if it is bringing in less than is going out, it should be acquired. Another thing that has been ignored in this case is that this lady, who has no children, has actually been left with 200 acres. That is a part of it that I must draw the attention of the House to, although the Deputies opposite who knew all about it did not refer to it. I mentioned it before when dealing with this matter on the Adjournment, but the Deputies opposite very conveniently ignored it. It is a very important factor to be borne in mind that she was not turned out on the road and left with nothing.

Is the Minister going to take the other 200 acres and treat her in the same way? Surely there is no logic in that?

Mr. Boland

That is the Land Commission case, and whatever fault may be found with the procedure adopted it can be shared by both Parties in the House and by the whole House that passed these Acts. There has been no change in the procedure as far as that matter is concerned. As I said before, a person might have some other kind of property that might be worth more than £3,000, and if the owner neglected it, he might not get even £5 for it after a lapse of some years. The person might have to give it away for nothing.

This land, I take it, was not being used. Hence nothing was being taken out of it.

Mr. Boland

The land was set for grazing, and as I have said, it was becoming derelict. I am sorry that these things happen. This is an exceptional case, and the Opposition have made as much as they possibly could out of it. At the same time, I do not think it is quite as bad as they would have the public believe.

With regard to Deputy Brasier's question about the Sailors and Soldiers Act, they got a reduction of 55 per cent., and it is hard to see what more can be done. Too much money was paid in this case, with the result that those people, even though they have got a reduction of 55 per cent., find it very hard to carry on. I cannot see what more can be done than to give them this reduction of 55 per cent.

I now come to the question of what is an economic holding on which we have had all sorts of opinions expressed here. I think that Deputy Gorey would probably say that anything less than 80 acres would not be any good. I cannot undertake to answer the question: "What is an economic holding?" because so much depends on the standard of the people that you are dealing with.

I took 20 Irish acres of good land as the minimum, and said than anything less would be too small.

Mr. Boland

I suppose an economic holding would be such a holding as would enable people to bring up their families in frugal comfort by making good use of the land they get. I think that the Land Commission are giving out such farms. The farms are not as big as they would like to have them. I would like to be able to give people 50 acres, but we have to remember that the quantity of land that is available is limited. We cannot manufacture it. We have a big problem to solve with congestion in the West, South and North, and if we were to give out 50 or 40-acre farms, then we would never solve that problem. We are going to make a desperate effort to do it in the coming year. I think the amount of land that is now being given out is about 25 acres of arable land. In the case of middling land, the quantity given may run to 35 acres.

Would the Minister say what is the valuation? I understood that it was the basis of valuation, and not acreage, that the Land Commission took.

Mr. Boland

They will get 25 acres, anyway, whatever the valuation may be.

There is a big difference in the quality of land. Twenty-five acres in one case might be quite all right, while in another case the land might be valueless.

Mr. Boland

They get more where the land is indifferent. The Land Commission officials are men of great experience and they will know where 25 acres will suffice, and of the case where it would be necessary to give more. The quantity of land given is not fixed on a valuation basis. What guides the Land Commission is the re-sale value of the land. I do not think that I will say any more about the question of what is an economic holding, but the Land Commission intends to continue the policy that I have spoken of.

Deputies from Meath were very insistent that the demands of local men should get first consideration. My reply is that they have got first consideration, and got, in my opinion, undue consideration. I think they have got more consideration than they really should have got. It is all very well for Deputy O'Reilly to talk about tilling too much. There is no fear of that. The instructors that are being sent around by the County Committee of Agriculture are satisfied with the way those Gaeltacht people are working their land. There is no fear that they will over-till. Some tillage must be done, and to have all the land laid down in grass, without any sign of tillage at all, is not good enough.

While I am on that, I suppose I had better refer to the question of fixity of tenure. Deputy Coburn raised the matter of the people in the County Louth who had land for about 11 years. Their case is different from that of the ordinary allottees who have signed purchase agreements. The people to whom he referred have signed temporary convenience agreements, one of the conditions of which is that they are not to sublet their land. But they all sublet it, and sublet it to bigger farmers. They all paid their rates, I agree, but they did not use the land. I know, of course, that conacre is taken by thousands of people all over the country, but I think that Deputy Coburn will agree that holdings that were given out by the Land Commission ought not to be let in conacre, but ought to be worked by the people who have been given land by the State.

They were not let. Were not specific instances given to indicate that the people tilled portions of the holdings for quite a number of years, and that it was only in exceptional circumstances that they let the land? Did not the woman whose husband died till the land for a certain number of years? Two or three of the other tenants also tilled the land until, through some unfortunate circumstance, such as the loss of cattle or horses in one or two years they were unable to till.

Mr. Boland

Deputy Dillon also raised the matter here. He gave me some papers and I took the matter up personally. I had the senior inspector for the district sent down to go into every case, and his report was that the case was even worse than was presented by his junior. In the case of that widow the Land Commission were quite prepared to reinstate her, but I understand that she is not anxious to be reinstated. That may not be so, but that is the report the inspector has got. The fact is then that there was no tillage done on the land; it was not done by the people to whom the land was given by the Land Commission. I think it will be agreed that it is not right that big farmers should be allowed to take the land off those small people, becoming in their turn, as Deputy Dillon said, minor landlords. That is really what is happening. When people get land from the Land Commission it is understood that they are going to live on the land and work it, instead of letting it and becoming minor landlords. I want to warn those people that, in cases where they are doing that, we will have no hesitation whatever in taking up the land from them again, and I think every Deputy in every Party ought to agree to help in that matter. It is waste of public money, and it is a shame to allow people to make such misuse of the land which the State has gone to the expense and trouble of providing them with.

I agree, but will the Minister not admit that those people got no warning whatsoever from the Land Commission that the land would be taken from them if they did not cultivate it? Surely the wiser course would be to say: "On and after such a date, if you do not till the land it will be taken from you." In the case of one particular tenant he had purchased seeds and ploughed the land for this year's crop, and he was turned out of it. I would ask the Minister, as man to man, if he and his family were in possession of a farm for ten years would he like to be thrown out of it?

Mr. Boland

I would not, but I should like to show Deputy Coburn a copy of the temporary convenience agreement that was signed. In that he would see the terms under which the people are given that land. They are clearly laid down, and one of the sections specifically deals with the question of sub-letting. I do not know whether any notice was given in this case, but the agreement itself ought to be sufficient. As far as the inspectors could ascertain, no attempt was made by the people to till this land. I have gone into the matter. I was asked by Deputy Dillon and Deputy Coburn to go personally into it, and I did. I got the file myself, and, not satisfied with that, I had a special inspection made. That is the report I received, and I have no reason to believe that the experienced inspector who made the report in that case was not acting fairly.

It is the first time it has happened in the history of land division in this country. Unfortunately we are the victims.

Mr. Boland

It will not be the last time, if I am left in charge of the Land Commission. It is all wrong that people who get land like that from the State and get new houses should refuse to live in the houses and refuse to work the land. If it is the first time it has happened, it is a start at any rate, and it will continue very rapidly. Some of those people who are now drawing rent which should never be drawn at all will find themselves dispossessed, and the type of people for whom the land was intended will get it.

If people meet with difficulties——

Mr. Boland

When people meet with difficulties every consideration is given to them. I am not going to admit that people are treated in that offhand manner: that they are simply thrown out by rule of thumb without any investigation. That does not happen.

It has happened in this case. There was no notice, unfortunately

Mr. Boland

The question of vesting was raised by Deputy Hogan. That matter has been dealt with. Last year 2,630 holdings were finally vested. That is the highest annual number since 1931. Of course the people are getting the benefit of the reduction since the 1931 Act. All the land was vested in the Land Commission, and although it was not vested in those people they are getting the benefit of the sinking fund reduction.

It is too slow.

Mr. Boland

It is being speeded up. Deputy Linehan suggested that there should be public notice in regard to those applications for land. As we do not want to have too many riots in the country, I do not think that is the best way. The Land Commission inspectors go around and interview every applicant for land, and every consideration is given. If we were to send out a notice that they would be considered on a certain date I do not think you would do much business. Deputy McGowan and Deputy Linehan raised the matter of the sub-division of land. I do not think there is any undue delay now. There has been a big improvement, but there are cases where there is difficulty about title, and in some estates in County Dublin near the sea where there are sub-divisions for house building purposes there is unavoidable delay. I understand that there is no avoidable delay now. Deputy O'Sullivan and others talked about improvements——

I think it applies to non-vested holdings.

Mr. Boland

Taken generally, I believe there is an improvement, and that will continue, but there will be some cases which will cause difficulty. Deputy Maguire dealt with the question of building. He wants the people to do the work themselves in his constituency. The experience of the Land Commission is that in Leitrim anyway it is not possible to get that done. It is one of the dearest counties for getting houses built. Deputy Brennan raised a question about military service pensions. That is no bar to a man getting land. Of course, if he has a big pension I suppose he would not get the same chance as a man who had only a small pension. As a matter of fact, I think Deputy Coburn mentioned the matter of national service. There is preference given to people in all categories who have pre-Truce I.R.A. service. There is that preference, but, of course, all the circumstances are taken into consideration, and I think general satisfaction has been given.

What I found was that it was used against those who had large pensions, and used in favour of those who were prospective pensioners. I found that actually happening.

Mr. Boland

The Deputy mentioned the case of a road ganger getting land. I know the case he referred to. There was a great number of applications, and the comment I heard about that division was that it was Deputy Brennan who divided the land. That is what I was told anyway, in Roscommon. I think it was done as well as it could be done in the circumstances.

I do not think the Minister knows the circumstances I am referring to.

Mr. Boland

Perhaps it is not the same case. That is what I was told by a prominent supporter of ours, that it was not the Land Commission who divided it but Deputy Brennan. Of course I am well aware that it was not any such thing; it was done as fairly as it could be done in the circumstances. On the question of increased improvement costs, that has relation to land acquired a couple of years before and not to the current year. Improvement expenditure carries over for a couple of years.

The standard has been the same for three or four years.

Mr. Boland

The amount of land is three times what it was in 1931, so naturally the improvement work would cost three times as much. Deputy Dillon made a long speech about fixity of tenure, but I cannot deal with all those matters. If any Deputy has raised points which I am passing over, I will have them looked into and an answer given. In regard to the general activity of the Land Commission, I think if people were aware of all that is being dealt with, if they were aware that there is actually under consideration at the present time as much as 700,000 acres, they would realise that the Land Commission is doing an enormous amount of work. It is doing much more work than it ever did before. As a matter of fact, I myself would feel inclined to try to get most of that off their hands before they embark on any new land, but I suppose that would not be possible either. In some of those cases in which there was reference made to the undue delay which has taken place, legal decisions have been given and have held up the proceedings. Nothing can be done until that position has been rectified. I think I have dealt with practically all the big questions which have been raised. If I were to give replies to every point which has been raised by the Deputies I would be here all night, and I do not think anybody wants to hear them. It is all very well for every man to come in and make his case here, but surely I am not expected to reply in public to every point that is made.

Before concluding I should like to give a little synopsis of what has been done in the last six years. From 1932 to 1938, 1,000,000 acres have been inspected; 420,000 acres have been acquired, and 400,000 acres have been divided amongst 30,000 allottees. A sum of £2,500,000 has been spent on improvements, mainly on divided land, and at the present moment there are 700,000 acres in the Land Commission, in various stages in the machine, for inquiry as to acquisition and division. I think that is a very good record and I think it justifies the increased expenditure that there has been on this Vote for some years past. I conclude by saying that I hope that, in a very short time anyway, that question that has been a burning question, so far as the land is concerned, will be coming near solution. I refer to the question of the rundale holdings in the West of Ireland, or wherever they exist, and the agricultural slums. For the purpose of dealing with that question, a large number of officials have had to be earmarked or left there, and they will have to be left there until that problem is solved in so far as we can solve it at all. It cannot be solved entirely, because there is not enough land in the country for it, but so far as it is possible to provide these people with new holdings and to consolidate their holdings and house the people properly, we shall endeavour to do so—to build houses for them and make the land more accessible for them. In order to do that, however, it will be necessary to have much more migration, and I hope that Deputies will help in that matter. It is a national work, and I hope Deputies will not take the narrow county view that has been taken by some Deputies. There is a great amount of migration in my own constituency, and I have to put up with it because it is good national work. As far as County Meath is concerned, we are told: "We object to them coming to this particular place; why do not you bring them down to the particular part of the county where it is most thinly populated, and there will be no objection." Well, when they were brought down to the most thinly populated place, we had to call in the police to protect the Land Commission officials in doing their work. Now, that is a bad spirit, and I appeal to the Deputies to take a broader national view. This is a very pressing problem, of which some Deputies seem to know nothing, and I suggest that they ought to go down for a day or two to some of these agricultural slums and they would then take a different view of this question. If we are not going to be allowed to migrate people into places such as that where we had the trouble recently, then the whole question of solving the congested areas problem simply cannot be solved.

Why is the Minister concentrating on migration to County Meath?

Mr. Boland

We are not concentrating on County Meath. We are migrating to Meath because it is one of the counties in Ireland that is most thinly populated, but there is migration going on to Clare and to Roscommon—plenty of it. I met a whole parish one day marching in with their parish priest in connection with this question, and I had to tell them the same thing: that we could not recognise the question of county boundaries and that we would have to take Ireland as a whole and give first preference to the local people. That always has been done, and done as I say, to an undue extent in County Meath. The Deputies can judge of that for themselves.

Sir, I put down a motion to refer back this Estimate for one reason—a policy reason—and that was for the purpose of asking the House to approve or disapprove of the action of the Minister for Lands in reducing the old rate of wages of forestry workers from 28/- a week to 24/- a week—in other words, reducing the old rate of wages by 15 per cent. If the Minister refuses to give an assurance that he will restore the rate to the old figure paid for the last eight years, pending the report of this advisory committee, I will have to invite the House to divide and say whether the House approves or disapproves of his action, and I only want one vote on that issue.

Mr. Boland

I cannot give a guarantee, because it is a matter for other Departments as well as my own. As I told the Deputy, I have raised the matter before he raised it here. I am not in a position to give such a guarantee because it does not rest entirely with the Minister for Lands. It is a question for the Government as a whole and therefore I could not give a decision on the matter.

Why cannot the Minister guarantee to give the old rate, pending the report to be made at some time by his advisory committee?

Mr. Boland

Because the Minister, as a member of the Government, has to consult other people in the matter. That is my position. Other people fix that rate as well as myself. I am not trying to shirk responsibility for it, but I am not in a position to say that the old rate will be restored pending investigation.

When is the Minister introducing his new Land Act?

Mr. Boland

It is not quite drafted yet.

Will it be introduced this year?

Mr. Boland

It will be introduced in a couple of months' time, at the very latest, I should say.

Question—"That the Estimate be referred back for reconsideration",— put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 39; Níl, 57.

  • Bennett, George C.
  • Benson, Ernest E.
  • Brasier, Brooke.
  • Brennan, Michael.
  • Browne, Patrick.
  • Burke, Patrick.
  • Coburn, James.
  • Corish, Richard.
  • Cosgrave, William T.
  • Costello, John A.
  • Davin, William.
  • Doyle, Peadar S.
  • Esmonde, John L.
  • Everett, James.
  • Finlay, John.
  • Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
  • Giles, Patrick.
  • Gorey, Denis J.
  • Heron, Archie.
  • Hogan, Patrick.
  • Keating, John.
  • Keyes, Michael.
  • Larkin, James.
  • Lavery, Cecil.
  • McFadden, Michael Og.
  • McGovern, Patrick.
  • McGowan, Gerrard L.
  • Mongan, Joseph W.
  • Nally, Martin.
  • O'Donovan, Timothy J.
  • O'Higgins, Thomas F.
  • O'Leary, Daniel.
  • O'Neill, Eamonn.
  • O'Shaughnessy, John J.
  • O'Sullivan, John M.
  • Reynolds, Mary.
  • Roddy, Martin.
  • Ryan, Jeremiah.
  • Wall, Nicholas.

Níl

  • Aiken, Frank.
  • Allen, Denis.
  • Anthony, Richard S.
  • Bartley, Gerald.
  • Beegan, Patrick.
  • Boland, Gerald.
  • Bourke, Dan.
  • Brady, Brian.
  • Brady, Seán.
  • Breathnach, Cormac.
  • Breen, Daniel.
  • Breslin, Cormac.
  • Carty, Frank.
  • Colbert, Michael.
  • Corry, Martin J.
  • Crowley, Fred Hugh.
  • Derrig, Thomas.
  • Dowdall, Thomas P.
  • Flinn, Hugo V.
  • Flynn, John.
  • Flynn, Stephen.
  • Fogarty, Andrew.
  • Fogarty, Patrick J.
  • Friel, John.
  • Fuller, Stephen.
  • Sheridan, Michael.
  • Smith, Patrick.
  • Traynor, Oscar.
  • Tubridy, Seán.
  • Gorry, Patrick J.
  • Harris, Thomas.
  • Humphreys, Francis.
  • Kelly, James P.
  • Kelly, Thomas.
  • Kennedy, Michael J.
  • Lemass, Seán F.
  • Little, Patrick J.
  • McEllistrim, Thomas.
  • Maguire, Ben.
  • Meaney, Cornelius.
  • Moore, Séamus.
  • Morrissey, Michael.
  • Moylan, Seán.
  • Munnelly, John.
  • O'Briain, Donnchadh.
  • O Ceallaigh, Seán T.
  • O'Grady, Seán.
  • O'Reilly, Matthew.
  • O'Rourke, Daniel.
  • O'Sullivan, Ted.
  • Ruttledge, Patrick J.
  • Ryan, James.
  • Ryan, Martin.
  • Ryan, Robert.
  • Victory, James.
  • Walsh, Richard.
  • Ward, Conn.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Everett and Keyes; Níl: Deputies Little and Smith.
Question declared lost.
Vote put and agreed to.
Barr
Roinn