Before the Minister concludes, I should like to ask him if he can give us any information about the migrants from the Gaeltacht to the good lands, in view of statements that have been made in various places? I should like to know if the Minister would make an authoritative statement on the position with regard to these migrants. From any private contacts that I have been able to make, or from any private sources of information, it seems to me that all the evidence points out that these migrants have been an unqualified success; their present position is far better than it was at any time in the past in the places from which they came, and I think that the time has come when the Minister ought to be able to give us detailed information as to the present economic position of these people and their prospects for the future. I am sure that the Land Commission has been able to supply the Minister with detailed information on this matter, and perhaps he could tell us what their prospects are for the future, and how they have done for the short time they have been there. I think that a statement of that kind is due from the Minister, and I would ask him to make it.
Committee on Finance. - Vote 54—Lands (resumed).
I dare say, Sir, that it would be just as well to deal with Deputy Bartley's question first. I had intended to deal with that matter anyhow, because it was raised by several Deputies. I think Deputy McMenamin raised it, but at any rate the matter was raised by a number of people, and I am in the position of being able to inform the House that we have gone into the question of some of these holdings in detail, especially with regard to the Gibbstown colony. We have heard a lot of talk about what is an economic holding, and I am prepared to admit that it would have been better if we could have given more land to these people, but as it is, in these cases, 22 acres is the minimum. There is no such thing as 20 acres; 22 acres is the minimum and, in future, there will probably be a little more. Although we cannot claim that a family are going to have, let us say, a very prosperous time on these small holdings, still, compared with what they have left, their position is very satisfactory indeed, I think. I have here four cases from that colony which, I am given to understand by the people who made the investigation, are typical cases. They may be the best cases, but I have been assured that they are based on typical cases.
They are average farms?
Mr. Boland
Yes, 22-acre holdings. What was done here was that the holdings these people left in their own areas have been compared with those to which they have gone, and the position in each case is set out here, and I think that, when I have read this out, it will at least satisfy the House and the country that the position of these people has been very much improved, indeed. One of the usual criticisms has been that a lot of the people from these holdings have been migrated. It seems to be expected by some people that the farms we are giving to these migrants ought to be able to maintain more than one family. Apparently, Deputy McMenamin knows the difference, but judging by some of the criticisms we have heard from some quarters it seems to have been expected that these small holdings should have been able to maintain a grown-up adult family in addition to the parents. In fact, one paper, published at the present time, gave articles week after week, pointing out the emigration from these areas.
Now, everybody knows that, no matter how big a farm is, only a certain number of people will remain on it. Other members of the family will go into the cities and towns. If the farm is a big farm, certain members will go into various professions or into businesses in the cities and towns, and, in the case of small farms, certain members of the family will look for work elsewhere than on the farm. Everybody knows that that is so; and that is what is happening with regard to these small holdings. I thought that Deputy Norton was referring, when he spoke the other day, to the heads of houses looking for work on the roads. I am quite certain that that has not happened. We have only transferred 90 families so far. I am hoping that, with the remaining land we have available— which, it will be understood, is a dwindling amount—it will be mainly devoted to the relief of congestion which still, unfortunately, exists on the Western seaboard. That is the Government's intention. The cost is pretty high, but we hope that it will not be as high in future as it has been with regard to these first cases. At any rate, we shall try to look for people who may be able to give some assistance themselves. The total cost of these holdings is about £960; that is, about £320 in excess of what it would take to put a landless man on to the same-sized holding. It must be taken into consideration that, in the case of a congest, he has surrendered his original holding, which goes to relieve, to a fair extent anyhow, the acute congestion in his immediate neighbourhood, and that has been forgotten generally by people who make these criticisms and expect that the same treatment should be given to people who have nothing at all to give in exchange. It should not be forgotten that these migrants have given up, or surrendered, something to their own immediate neighbours, and also that they have left their own districts.
What has to be borne in mind is that the extra cost is about £320 per head. That is the maximum. I hope that in the future we will be able to get a type of migrant who will not require more than about £120 over and above what it would take to provide a landless man with a holding. As far as the landless men are concerned, I think there will not be very much land left for very many more of them. We are going to concentrate on the migrants. I propose to give some details with regard to these migrants, because I am not going to allow myself to be accused of slurring over these things. I have some figures here which I propose to give to the House so that the public may be able to get accurate information about them. I propose to deal with four cases, two taken from Donegal, one from Kerry and one from Mayo. The holdings are on the Major Gerrard estate at Gibbstown, County Kildare. Here are the particulars of the first case, that of a migrant from Donegal. His annuity and rates on his new holding amount to £19 2s. 4d.; what he paid by way of annuity and rates on his old holding was £3 15s. 10d. As Deputies will observe, there is a big difference between the two figures. The sales of stock and produce at Gibbstown for the year 1938 amounted in this man's case to £187 6s. 0d.
Is that a gross figure?
Mr. Boland
That is what was realised for what was sold off the farm, exclusive of what he retained for the maintenance of himself and his wife. Later, I propose to give to the House full details of a case as regards what was consumed on the farm and what was actually sold off it.
That should be very interesting.
Mr. Boland
This man's sales off his old holding amounted to £49 8s. 0d. This man was supplied with stock by the Land Commission to the value of £155 10s. 0d.
What stock did he get?
Mr. Boland
I am not able to tell the Deputy at the moment, but I may be able to get the information for him later. He got stock, but I am not sure if he got implements as well. I will be able to tell the Deputy about that later. The value of the stock and produce on his hands, having disposed during the year of what I have already mentioned, was £269. That is how he stood after selling all that produce off the farm.
A 20-acre farm?
Mr. Boland
A 22-acre farm. The value of the stock and produce on his old holding in the Gaeltacht in March, 1937, was £79 5s. 0d. The next case is also of a Donegal migrant. The annuity and rates on his new holding amount to £15 7s. 0d. On the old holding they only amounted to 12/-. His sales of produce and stock off his new holding at Gibbstown amounted to £154 8s. 0d., and off his old holding in the Gaeltacht to £23 18s. 0d. I would draw the attention of the House to the big difference in that man's position.
It would be very interesting if we could have from the Minister some details of what he sold off the new holding which realised the figure mentioned.
Mr. Boland
I will do that before I conclude. The value of the stock supplied to that man by the Land Commission was £152 10s. 0d. The value of the stock and produce on his hands in March, 1938, was £194. The value of the stock and produce on his hands on his old holding in the Gaeltacht in March, 1937, was £25 2s. 6d.
Take the case of the Kerry migrant. His annuity and rates on his new holding at Gibbstown amount to £17 6s 6d. On the old holding in Kerry they amounted to £8. He was paying more in the case of his old holding than the two migrants from Donegal. The sale of stock and produce off his new holding in 1938, amounted to £179 13s. 2d., while what he sold off his old holding in March, 1937 amounted to £67 14s. 0d. The value of stock supplied to this migrant by the Land Commission was £62 10s. 0d. He got less than the others. The value of stock and produce in the hands of this migrant in March, 1939, was £334 10s. 0d., while the value of the stock and produce on his old holding in the Gaeltacht in March, 1937 was £151. We got all this from the migrants themselves—that is to what they had at that period. We have to take what they say for that.
The next case is that of the migrant from Mayo. The annuity and the rates on his new holding amount to £16 17s. 6d. On the old holding they were £4 6s. 0d. The sale of stock and produce off the new holding in 1938 amounted to £144 4s. 2d. while off the old holding they amounted to £30— that is in March, 1937. The value of the stock supplied to this migrant by the Land Commission was £145 10s. 0d. The value of stock and produce in his hands in March, 1939, was £267. The value of the stock and produce off his old holding in the Gaeltacht in March, 1937, was £68. These figures are very illuminating. I cannot say whether every migrant on these new holdings is in the position of these men. I have been assured, however, by a very reliable official, a man who has had great experience in charge of these migration schemes, that these figures are typical of the migrants generally. There may be some who have not done quite as well, but, taking the migrants generally, they are doing very well and have justified themselves.
As regards the last case, that of the man who was supplied with stock by the Land Commission to the value of £145 10s. 0d., and whose sales off the holding realised £144 4s. 2d., is the Minister in a position to say whether that migrant was supplied with implements as well as with stock?
Mr. Boland
I think so.
Would the Minister give us some particulars with regard to the stock sold by some of these migrants?
Mr. Boland
I will take one case, where the stock in hands amounted to £187. This is one of the Donegal cases. The annuity and the rates on the new holding at Gibbstown amounted to £19 2s. 4d., and on the old holding to £3 15s. 10d. Here are some details of the farm produce and stock sold in 1938: Six cattle, two-year olds, £70; 12 pigs, £50; 12 chickens, £2; eggs, £7 16s. 0d.; butter, £5 10s. 0d.; potatoes, £11; wheat, £15; oats, £26. I can, if the House wishes, read out what he sold. I think he did better than in his old holding.
The Minister need not give us what he sold.
Mr. Boland
Now I will come to what he consumed.
The Minister need not mind giving what he consumed, but, perhaps, he would tell us how many cattle, pigs and young farm stock remain?
Mr. Boland
Very well. He had a horse worth £35.
He got that from the Land Commission?
Mr. Boland
Yes, I read that out already. I told the House what the Land Commission gave him. I gave the gross amount the Land Commission gave. The total value of the stock supplied to this migrant on the Gibbstown colony was £155 10s. 0d. I have said that the horse was worth £35; four cows, £55, and five two-year old cattle, £62 10s. 0d. He sold five two-year olds and three one and a half year olds. He has the others on hands. He has three six-months old calves valued at £18; one sow in pig, £8; one two-year old heifer, £12; poultry valued at £6 10s.; hay, £6; potatoes on hands, £36; seed oats, £3. He will probably sell the potatoes now at a big price. The total value amounts to £269.
Was there an expenditure of money on the purchase of anything during the year—did he use any of his own money?
Yes. How were the store cattle got? He must have purchased them?
Mr. Boland
I am giving you the net position at the end of the year. What I set out to do was to show the position they were in compared with their position in their old holdings.
I thought the Minister was giving a balance sheet. There were only four cows, and presumably he did not have two year old calves.
Mr. Boland
I want the Deputy to be clear on this point. It is not my intention or purpose to deceive anybody. I only read out what the Land Commission gave these people. They did not come in there empty-handed. Deputy Cosgrave was not present when I started to read out the figures. I did not say it was a balance sheet. What I am trying to do is this: to show what the income of these people is now as compared with their old position. During the debate the point was raised that it was ridiculous to bring these people up to these allotments; that they were practically all failures. Possibly they are not in as affluent a state as a person with 60 acres of land would be; still, compared with what they were doing in their old holdings, they are doing very well.
Yes; no matter from what source he came, that is a thrifty holding now.
Mr. Boland
I dealt with that case pretty fully, because Deputy Bartley asked me what I had to say about it. It is our intention as far as possible to see that the remaining land that comes into our hands is used for the relief of the acute congestion in the western seaboard and in Leitrim, and that the chances of landless men in the future, whatever Deputies Giles, Kelly and O'Reilly may say, will not be anything like as rosy as in the past. Deputy Norton, when speaking about these holdings, complained about the people who got them, that they were not working the holdings, that they were looking for work on the roads and on relief schemes, and not making a success of their farms.
In some cases I would say that that is a correct description of the position, but it is not general. In no case of these migrants to whom I am now referring has there been a failure of that kind. If anything that we have done has been justified it is this migration attempt of ours even though I have to admit that the cost has been high. For the information of Deputy Cosgrave I may mention that the cost compared with the setting up of landless men in holdings was £320 as against £960. That is the difference between this and the setting up of landless men in holdings. We have also to bear in mind that the migrant in these cases surrendered his old holding and benefited six, and sometimes as many as ten, of his neighbours, whereas the landless men gave up nothing.
What is being done in connection with the uneconomic holders in these counties?
Mr. Boland
Their needs are attended to before the needs of any others. The uneconomic holders take precedence before any migrants. The Deputies for Meath should know that the needs of the local congests are being first attended to.
That is only within a distance of one and a half miles.
Mr. Boland
I have the same position in my constituency. The Land Commission do not propose to continue the practice of giving people new holdings or plots of land at a distance from their dwelling. I find in my own constituency in Roscommon—and I know it is the same in Meath and other places—that there is great reluctance on the part of these people living in congested districts to leave and take up a better farm elsewhere. What the Land Commission is trying to do, and insisting on doing in order to relieve local congests, is to get people from these congested areas to move into new farms elsewhere so that the land that they vacate can be divided amongst their neighbours. Everybody knows that it is most unsatisfactory to have people in a holding with a field here and another field there a mile or a mile and a half away. The Government have laid down that policy and I, as the Minister for Lands, have directed the Land Commission that holdings are not to be given to people at a greater distance from their dwellings than a mile or a mile and a half at the outside. The Government considers it a sound policy to get local congests to accept a holding elsewhere so as to allow their existing holdings to be divided amongst their neighbours. That is about the best way of dealing with congestion sometimes.
There is nothing new in that.
Mr. Boland
There is nothing new in it, but, as Deputy Nally knows, there are cases in which additions were given quite a considerable distance away—up to two miles—and they have been most unsatisfactory. I say that not alone have the local congests been considered, but, if anything, too much consideration has been given to other types of local people, and where the failures have been is where a lot of people, landless men, who were supposed to be good allottees—they may have deceived some inspector—got land and did not avail themselves of the opportunity given to them. Some have not gone to live in their houses— I will not say a great number—but the Land Commission is determined that if they do not live in these houses and work these holdings, the holdings will be taken from them again. Whatever opposition there may be to that, we will insist that they either work the holdings, and work them properly, or make way for somebody else who will. They have been given this opportunity, and if they are not going to avail of it, we will get plenty of people who will.
Would the Minister say to what particular county that statement is applicable?
Mr. Boland
The Eastern counties generally, and largely where landless men have been given land. A number of them have set their land.
Of course they have.
Mr. Boland
We do not mind their doing that for a year or two years, to give them a chance of getting on their feet. That is reasonable, and, very often, the house has not been built for three years after the land has been divided. The Land Commission are very reasonable in that matter, but if they are satisfied that they have put the wrong man in the place, they are not going to leave him there, and everybody in the House should agree that they ought not to leave him there.
Did the Land Commission get that undertaking when they were giving the land?
Mr. Boland
It was made clear to everyone who got land that they were expected to make the best use of it.
By whom?
Mr. Boland
By the inspectors, and whether they did or not, we are entitled to see that they do work the land. Surely we are not to spend money for people to take the most out of the land and throw it aside then? Deputy McMenamin, in starting off his remarks, had a great deal to say about nulla bona returns, and he mentioned that there were 3,400 on hands. That is a big number, I admit, but it is not a very great percentage of the total holdings. There are about 480,000 holdings, and the percentage is about 6 of the total. I think that is not a very big percentage.
It would be higher if the individual farmers were taken into account. Some people have more than one annuity payment to make.
Mr. Boland
I cannot go into that now, but I say that if nulla bona returns were made in 3,400 cases, the percentage would be about .6. It is not a big percentage. I am sorry they are there. It includes persons who never had stock at all—the type of person who sets his meadow. I should like to see the percentage much less, but I do not think it is anything to be much alarmed about. Some Deputy said that these people were the types of people who were in fear and trembling lest the land would be taken from them. That is not the type of land we go for at all.
Has it increased in the last six or seven years?
Give us the trend.
Mr. Boland
I cannot say offhand, but, as I think I pointed out in my opening statement, the collection of annuities, though not satisfactory by any means, is certainly improving.
How could it be satisfactory?
Mr. Boland
I would ask Deputy Curran not to draw me on that point.
Would the Minister look at this point? I do not want to put a political question, but it is a matter of examination. Is there one section of persons engaged in farming more hit by reason of the events of the last few years than another?
Mr. Boland
There may be, but I think the Deputy will admit that, apart from the special circumstances obtaining in this country, agriculture throughout the world has been going through a very bad time.
I know, but what I am at is whether there is a particular section more hit than another section. They can be divided into about ten classes—£10, £20, £30, £40 and £50 valuation and so on—and as you go up, there is greater employment on the farms. If we are to make agriculture a success, we ought to see that the maximum number of persons is engaged in it.
Mr. Boland
I agree, but I cannot go into that detail now and I do not think the Deputy would expect me to go into such detail. I am simply saying that so far as nulla bona returns are concerned, they are high, and I wish they were not so high, but I do not think that anybody could say that they are alarmingly high, as a percentage of the total. Deputy McMenamin and other Deputies spoke about the three F's. I think it was Deputy Dillon who started that.
It started 50 years ago.
Mr. Boland
Three Deputies on the Opposition side, Deputy Dillon, Deputy Giles and Deputy McMenamin, actually want the 1923 Act repealed. That is what they said, and I do not think I am misinterpreting what they said. They want the compulsory sections of the 1923 Act repealed. I do not think the Fine Gael Party stands for that, but these Deputies have definitely said that.
I spoke of the 1933 Act and the extension of the acquisition powers.
Mr. Boland
I thought the Deputy referred to the 1923 Act.
I never named the 1923 Act.
Mr. Boland
I misunderstood the Deputy then; but what I want to say in that case is that if there has been any interference with these three F's it started in the 1923 Act.
No.
Mr. Boland
Yes. The compulsory powers were first taken in the 1923 Act.
With the reservation that wherever a farm was taken from a person in occupation and not paying a Land Commission annuity, he had to get a farm elsewhere. It could only be taken in a place in which there was congestion in the neighbourhood.
Mr. Boland
The compulsory powers were first introduced in the 1923 Act.
Precisely, but the security attaching to the farm was not interfered with.
Mr. Boland
Deputy Dillon will admit that they were first interfered with there. I have the records here but I have not time to read them. It may be that owing to the political talk that has gone on the insecurity has been increased, but I deny that that is because of the 1933 Act. I should like to know if the Fine Gael Party—and I am not trying to score any points at all—stand for the repeal of the compulsory powers.
We are satisfied with the compulsory powers.
Mr. Boland
I give the Party an opportunity to say that they do not, and I pass from the subject. I misunderstood three Deputies. That is all I can say.
Compensation under the 1923 Act was based on market price.
Mr. Boland
The market price is not a matter to be settled by the Minister. Deputy Cosgrave asked me if I could give him an undertaking that the law in respect of the excepted matters was being observed. I can give him the assurance, if he is prepared to take it from me, that the Minister does not interfere in these cases.
We want compensation and not confiscation.
Mr. Boland
The Land Commission fix the price, and if the person whose land is being taken is not satisfied with the price, he can appeal to the Appeals Tribunal.
How many appeals are there?
Mr. Boland
I think a great number, but that was always the case. Deputy Brasier will admit that his big grievance in respect of the type of person he represents is that too much altogether was paid and that a burden was left on the land which the tenants could not possibly face.
Others could say the same thing.
Mr. Boland
I believe, from what I have heard going back and forward through the country, that, generally speaking, under the 1923 Act that was so. Very heavy prices were paid.
It was the 1919 Act I referred to.
Mr. Boland
I am well aware of that. The Land Commission still works on the formula that the price ought to be fair to the owner and to the Land Commission. That was laid down in the 1923 Act.
Will the Minister allow me one minute to give a specific case?
Mr. Boland
I am not going to give way so easily this time. I am going to stick it out until everybody has got his answer.
You must admit one thing—that is, that the compensation paid at the present time is far below that which was ever paid before, and, therefore, the banks look upon land as an insecure proposition.
Mr. Boland
As regards the three "F's", I have tried to deal with that and I am glad the Fine Gael Party are not looking for the repeal of the powers——
Of the 1933 Act, yes.
Mr. Boland
Reference was made to the drastic powers to be taken in the new Bill. There will be no drastic powers in the new Bill. It will contain what we actually thought we passed previously. A judge held that what we thought we had provided in the previous Act had not been provided. We are dealing with that in the new Bill and, in addition, with some things which were found to be necessary. A number of little things have been holding up the Land Commission in one way or another and we are trying to deal with these. Consequently, there has been delay. The main point to be dealt with is that raised in the decision given in the Maher case. The point was raised in that case that the reference to the commissioners who are to make the decision was not to a specified number of commissioners but to "the commissioners". It was held that that meant all the commissioners. That made it impossible for us to proceed because two of these commissioners cannot possibly act in cases in which they may have to hear appeals. That is the main point we dealt with. Another section was held to be ultra vires under the old Constitution but that disappeared when the new Constitution was enacted. The obstacle I referred to remained, however, and we have not been able to take any land compulsorily since then.
Deputy Cogan made a great complaint about the collection of land annuities. He started off by challenging our right to collect them and he was ruled out on that. As he went so far, perhaps I may say that if the Deputy would use his influence with the people he represents to get them to make their cases to the Collection Branch, as Deputy Fagan has done, he would find that the Collection Branch would be very reasonable. If he takes up an attitude of defiance, then the people concerned will have to take what they are getting. People in his constituency made fools of themselves and allowed their cattle to go for practically nothing rather than make an arrangement, which they could easily have done, and which would have been fairly satisfactory to them.
I know a case in which one man has ruined himself through his cussedness and pigheadedness. There is no use in beating one's head against a stone wall. We are going to collect these annuities, and if these methods are the only methods available, then we shall have to continue to employ them. As to the attitude taken up by Deputy Cogan and his organisation, we are certainly not going to give way. If they have a proposition to make, they will find that the Collection Branch are not going to drive people out of production altogether. They have never done that. Every Deputy who has ever had occasion to make a case to the Collection Branch admits that they are reasonable.
Is the Minister not aware——
Questions to the Minister must be within reason. They have grown out of reason now.
We made representations to the Minister.
Mr. Boland
Put up propositions. We were told that we should suspend the collection of land annuities, and I have told the Deputy that that cannot be done.
Did you promise to give a certain length of time with regard to arrears?
Mr. Boland
I was asked to do that, and I said that we could not give any general terms. The most I could do was to refer the Deputy to the section which deals with collection. I am satisfied that if he advises these people to go to the Collection Branch, they will be reasonably met.
They have not been reasonably met.
Mr. Boland
The Deputy could get very few people to say that. As regards the members of the squad, the Minister for Justice is responsible for them, though it is at the instance of the Minister for Lands that they are working. Deputy Gorey raised a question about costs. He said the costs in some cases were given against the tenant. I understand that the reason for that was that he objected to the standard land purchase annuity. It was the tenant who started the proceedings and, that being the case, he had to pay the costs. If he had accepted what was fixed, and had not brought proceedings, there would have been no question of costs.
I mentioned the circumstances quite clearly. The tenant objected to the standard purchase annuity. The Land Commission sent down a valuer to fix what would be the proper purchase annuity in the opinion of the Land Commission. He fixed it and the tenant had nothing further to say to it. That was appealed and costs were given against the tenant because of the act of the Commissioners. That is unjust.
Mr. Boland
The function of the inspector sent down was to make a report to the Land Commission. He cannot fix the standard annuity.
His job was to fix it.
Mr. Boland
The inspector places his value on the holding. The Commissioners consider that and it is for them to decide. Whoever initiates proceedings has to pay costs if the court so decides. That is the practice and I cannot alter it. I have no control over it. The question of the size of the holdings was again raised. As I have said, I had a different view from my predecessor and, since I came into office, I got the Land Commission to increase the size of the holding to landless people. We cannot be expected to put them on a level with men with 50 or 60 acres. They are being reasonably dealt with. Deputy Brasier made a complaint about the type of people who have been given land in his part of the country. Taking everything into consideration, I think the people who got land have been reasonably successful. I do not know the whole particulars. I had not time to go into the question of the rents.
Do you think that people who are unable to pay cottage rents will be able to pay for the land?
Mr. Boland
Some Deputies have said that there are people who like to deceive the inspector, who will show him a deposit receipt. I do not know if that is true, but there may be some cases where an inspector is deceived: all that he can do is to make the best case he can.
But that remains pretty general.
Mr. Boland
It is not pretty general.
I would say it is.
The Chair will hear only the Minister.
Mr. Boland
Deputy Cosgrave has asked me to say whether there was work for two Ministers in this Department or not. I would imagine that, as ex-President, he ought to know that that would be more a question for the Taoiseach than for the Minister for Lands. He made a suggestion that, on account of Section 6 of the Act of 1933, there should be less work for the Minister than there was in his time. I have made inquiries in the Department as to that. I asked was it the practice of the Minister for Lands before our time to interfere actively in the question of acquisition, fixation of price, and so on, and I was assured that it was not the practice, and I quite believe it. As a matter of fact, the position was rather indefinite, but in practice it was practically the same as it is now.
Then most of the allegations were all wrong?
Mr. Boland
Deputies who have attended meetings in Roscommon know that they have more to say in Roscommon about the division of land than I have; but I am given to understand that, when the Deputy's Party was in power, the same things were said about them. As someone here has remarked, in a case like that it should be assumed that things are going as fairly as possible. So far as the work is concerned, I expect the people who advise me to tell me the truth. Perhaps it was rather an embarrassing question to ask them—as to whether there was work for two Ministers or not: it was hard for them to answer and to say whether there was work to be found or not.
Do you do an eight-hour day?
Mr. Boland
Well, not altogether; sometimes more, sometimes less. I wonder does the Deputy do an eighthour day? As a matter of fact, sometimes I do a 16-hour day. I did not answer that question of Deputy Cosgrave's because I did not think he was serious. I think he would know that it was for the Taoiseach to decide whether there should be one Minister or two Ministers.
What about the system of inquiry?
Mr. Boland
I am dealing with the various Deputies' questions as I go along. Regarding the introduction of people from the Gaeltacht, there was an extra cost in bringing them previously, but we hope we will be able to get the type of migrant who will not cost more than £120 extra. It might not be the best of economics, but socially it is a very desirable thing to do. Some of the Deputies seem to think that, because we have brought up small migrants, we have abandoned the policy of bringing large migrants. If we can get large people to surrender their holdings and give a lot of relief in the congested areas, we would be only too glad to do it if we get the chance. Then there was a comparison made here between the town and the country and the amount that was done in Deputy Cosgrave's time——
Not so expensively.
Mr. Boland
I am afraid that the Deputy still has the city mentality.
What about the Minister?
Mr. Boland
I know the country people very well, although I may have known little about them when I came in here.
Even thy speech doth betray thee.
Mr. Boland
I see that Deputy Cosgrave still has the city mentality. He is comparing the cost to the State of helping people in agriculture with the cost of housing in the city. This is very surprising to me, since I know that Deputy Cosgrave is living in the country.
If I had your salary I would be able to afford it.
Mr. Boland
I wish I had quarter as much. Now, regarding the sale of produce and whether it was fair, I wish there had been no necessity for it, but, when people will not even make an attempt to meet the Land Commission and sell for themselves, I do not see what else can be done. We have an obligation to collect the money.
If the Minister had cattle to sell himself, what would he do?
Mr. Boland
As a headstrong man, if I were out against the Government I would be prepared to sacrifice my property and would not whine about it. Some people took care to make no attempt to pay, whereas if they came to the Land Commission and asked for time, saying they would be ruined if they sold now, they would get that time. I might not come to the Land Commission myself if I were in that position, but at any rate I would not whine about it.
Is it fair? You are the judge at the present moment.
Mr. Boland
I must try to take a reasonable attitude. As I say, if the Land Commission were to adopt an attitude like that adopted by some of the rack-renting landlords in the past, and insist on getting their pound of flesh, no matter what it might mean, then there was something to be said for the criticism. But a man who wishes to pay his way and is not able to will only have to go to the Collection Department and make the best offer he can, put his case before them, say that he has so many cattle and that if he sells now he will not get as good a price as if he sold later and would be ruined, that he would be prepared when market conditions are right to sell, say, one cow, and pay something, he will always get time to do so.
I know a case where 14 cows were sold for £32.
Mr. Boland
In some cases there was a challenge that had to be met.
Did the Minister ever hear of a landlord who sent the sheriff to a man's house for six months' rent, amounting to £1? The Land Commission did that.
Mr. Boland
There was a case that Deputy Cosgrave made about a lady in Meath. That case was dealt with under Section 44 of the 1931 Act. I must correct what I said previously, because I took it then that she had applied herself and I find now that the Land Commission made application first. That even makes the case worse than Deputy Cosgrave is making it. It was dealt with under that section, and once proceedings were started, unless the land was worked according to proper methods of husbandry the Land Commission had no option but to take the land over. We are proposing to amend that section to prevent a recurrence of cases of that kind. So far as the retrospective part is concerned, I was inquiring as to the possibility and I am afraid that is a difficulty. I put the matter up to the Land Commission when Deputy Giles and Deputy Fagan came to see me. I asked the Land Commission to try to give the compensation they suggested in the case of her nephew, as I thought that might go some way to meet the case. I admit it is a bad case, but, in this section that I have referred to, we hope to prevent a recurrence of it. Deputy Fagan says that a number of cases are being held up on account of it. That is so. We think, however, when this amendment comes in it will make that impossible in the future. I regret very much that that happened.
I think that something more than that would be necessary.
Mr. Boland
I felt that way too, but the difficulty is that it may open up goodness knows how many cases.
I do not think it would and, even if it did, justice should be done—let justice be done even though the skies come down. Let the position be such that the Minister can eventually stand before the Judgment Seat and say: "I did one good turn."
Mr. Boland
It was some judge who decided that natural justice came before the law of the land—at least, that is what one Deputy said.
That is quite so.
Mr. Boland
Well, it was a judge who said that. In this case it was a judge who made the allocation, and I cannot interfere with it. When the 1933 Act was being passed, all sorts of dire prophecies were made about what the Minister would do. We were told that he would have his yes-men, and that he would be interfering all the way. I have not interfered. I have been asked by members of the Opposition to take a personal interest in this case. I do not know whether it was a special compliment to myself, but they persisted that I should.
I have not approached the Minister in that connection, but I think that this is a case in which he should make a special effort. Do one just thing for that woman before you die.
Mr. Boland
I did not do it. It was in the Seanad it happened, and now Deputies want me to interfere in a case where I have not a right to interfere.
You are asked merely to do justice. You were told at the time that a case of that sort might happen. I did not think it possible for such a bad one to happen.
Mr. Boland
I did not think so either.
You can correct it; I cannot.
Mr. Boland
With regard to the costs of collection, that is very largely a matter for the person in arrears. I give those people as much notice publicly as I can, and I think they ought to try to make arrangements. If they continue to ignore the demands made on them, the Land Commission take it for granted that they are not going to pay, and then costs are incurred. It would be better for those people to make some arrangement.
When they try to do that, the Land Commission say the matter is in the hands of the flying squad and that they cannot interfere.
Mr. Boland
If the Deputy, or any person in arrears, makes any reasonable offer it can be accepted and the matter will be taken out of the hands of the flying squad, but if he persists in saying that we are not entitled to collect the money, we will try, anyway. Deputy Victory wants us to operate so that people will not be kept waiting for five years, or some other period like that. I cannot give any guarantee in that matter. Deputy Norton was on the same point and it is very troublesome to be dealing with these cases. I do not think it is desirable, when a Deputy asks to have a report made about some estate, that in all cases we should rush an inspector to the land to make a report. I think great discretion has to be used before an inspector is sent to examine land. I do not believe there is any grievance in that connection. There may be an odd mistake made. For instance, an inspector may go to an estate that was never acquired at all and the farmer may be frightened and little misunderstandings may arise. I am not prepared to agree that we should automatically send an inspector to make a report about any land that may be mentioned to us.
Deputy Norton dealt with the size of the holding. I think we have already covered that point. There are no 20-acre holdings. The 22-acre holding was the minimum, and for the present it will be a holding of 25 acres of arable land. That is the maximum this Government is likely to give, except in the case of a migrant, where we have to give an exchange. Of course, that is a different case.
Even the 25 acres could not be regarded as an economic holding.
Mr. Boland
It is as economic as we can make it. Of course, Deputy Gorey may have a different standard. It is about the most we can do, anyway. I have covered the ground pretty well in the statement I have read out.
What we mean by an economic holding is one that will support a man and his family for the 12 months. We do not mean a part-economic holding.
Mr. Boland
Perhaps the Deputy was not here when I was dealing with the Gaeltacht cases. When he reads the discussion, I think he will find a lot of information on that point. Deputy Norton said that it takes an interminable period to induce the Land Commission to inspect lands. I dealt with that point, and I think there is a reason for the delay, which should be apparent to everybody. Deputy Ryan mentioned cases in Tipperary, and he knows very well that in respect of these cases we cannot make more progress until we get the new legislation. Deputy Kissane referred to embankments. We have spent a lot of money on embankments.
You may want to spend a lot more.
Mr. Boland
We may. I do not want to attack the farmers, but I know that in some cases—and I think Deputy Curran knows it, too—very often the embankments are neglected by the people who should maintain them. In some cases they were deliberately broken in order to let stock have access to the fresh grass across the margins, and then those people will not carry out the repairs. They will not make any attempt in some cases to help themselves. They expect the Land Commission to do everything. It is a pity that these people will not repair the breaches they make in those embankments. In some of the cases Deputy Curran is interested in, he knows that kind of thing happens.
It is a pity to see a couple of hundred acres under water.
Mr. Boland
You cannot expect the Land Commission officials to be going around after them all the time.
Surely we have somebody in the country capable of making embankments. Some of these embankments were made a hundred years ago or more, and it would be a disgrace if your engineering staff was not competent to make proper embankments.
Mr. Boland
As regards Deputy Dillon he is many years in the House, and surely it is time he stopped shouting about corruption, telling us we are all corrupt. I think he said that I was only 30 per cent., and that is a little better than some of my colleagues. That sort of utterance does not do him or his Party any good. He did not actually say that I was wangling. I think he might cease making remarks of that kind. It is not a good thing to do that and, at any rate, there is no foundation for it, and he ought to cut it out.
He made a suggestion here about the desirability of having an experiment in regard to the division of land; instead of dividing up the land into small holdings, to give 250 or 260 acres and have it worked by a number of people in common. I was thinking of that idea myself but the thing I see against it is that, unfortunately, we are individualists in this country and the whole thing would depend on the people you would bring together. I would like to see a thing like that happening myself but it is an experiment that would be very risky. If you got the right type of people it would be all right but that is the trouble. I am afraid our experience has been very bad in the past and until we learn to co-operate, I am afraid the idea would not be practicable.