Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 1 May 1940

Vol. 79 No. 17

Committee on Finance. - Vote 52—Lands.

An t-Aire Tailte (Tomás O Deirg)

Tairgim:—

Go ndeontar suim ná raghaidh thar £928,982 chun slánuithe na suime is gá chun íoctha an Mhuirir a thiocfaidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh lá de Mhárta, 1941, chun Tuarastail agus Costaisí Oifig an Aire Tailte agus Oifig Choimisiún Talmhan na hEireann (44 agus 45 Vict., c. 49, a. 46, agus c. 71, a. 4; 48 agus 49 Vict., c. 73, a. 17, 18 agus 20; 54 agus 55 Vict., c. 48; 3 Edw. 7, c. 37; 7 Edw. 7, c. 38 agus c. 56; 9 Edw. 7, c. 42; Uimh. 27 agus Uimh. 42 de 1923; Uimh. 25 de 1925; Uimh. 11 de 1926; Uimh. 19 de 1927; Uimh. 31 de 1929; Uimh. 11 de 1931 Uimh. 33 agus Uimh. 38 de 1933; Uimh. 11 de 1934; Uimh. 41 de 1936; agus Uimh. 26 de 1939).

That a sum not exceeding £928,982 be granted to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1941, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Offices of the Minister for Lands and of the Irish Land Commission (44 and 45 Vict., c. 49, s. 46, and c. 71, s. 4; 48 and 49 Vict., c. 73, ss. 17, 18 and 20; 54 and 55 Vict., c. 48; 3 Edw. 7, c. 57; 7 Edw. 7, c. 38, and c. 56; 9 Edw. 7, c. 42; Nos. 27 and 42 of 1923; 25 of 1925; 11 of 1926; 19 of 1927; 31 of 1929; 11 of 1931; 33 and 38 of 1933, 11 of 1934; 41 of 1936; and 26 of 1939).

Tá Meastachán na Roinne Tailte den bhliain 1940-41 níos lugha de £208,356 ná iomlán an Vóta den bhliain seo caithte. Ní foláir sa tsaol atá anois ann a bheith tíoghbhusach cnuaisciúnach le caiteachas puiblí agus do rinneadh mion-scrúdú géar grinn ar gach altán den Mheastachán d'fhonn an méid is mó is féidir do shábháil. Táthar tar éis obair Choimisiún na Talmhan do laigheadú cheana agus uimhir mhaith den fhuirinn, idir lucht, oifige agus lucht fostaíochta lasmuich, do thabhairt ar iasacht do Ranna eile le haghaidh dualgaisí speisialta. Cé go bhfuil na hoifigigh seo ar iasacht, is as Vóta na Roinne Tailte atá a dtuarastail á n-íoc, ach tá cuid de thoradh an laigheaduithe ar an obair le feiceál sa Mheastachán caiteachais faoi roinnt Rannán:—

Is i Rannán I atá an laigheadú is mó. Do réir an Rannáin sin tá an méid atá ag teastáil i gcóir Feabhsú Estát, etc., £150,000 faoi bhun an mhéide chó-réire don bhliain anuraidh. Sé an fáth is mó ar caitheadh na suimeanna móra airgid ar fheabhsú le cupla bliain anuas ach réimhsí móra talmhan Nea-thionóntuithe do bheith á roinnt, ach anois nuair nach mbeidh an oiread sin talmhan le roinnt beidh laigheadú dá dhruim sin ar an méid a bhéas le caitheamh ar Estáit a fheabhsú. Ach ina choinnibh sin, ní mór an bhreis atá tagtha ar chostas ábhar tógála a chur san áireamh agus tar éis an scéil ar fad do chíoradh, ceapadh £560,550 a lorg faoi Rannán I in aghaidh na bliana airgeadais seo. Tá £550,000 de seo le caitheamh ar oibreacha feabhsúcháin; teastóidh £5,000 chun Leasa Tionóntachta ar Estáit ba le Bord na gCeanntar gCumhang a cheannach; is le haghaidh éileamh ar Chúiteamh do Lucht Oibre £3,400 de, is i gcóir iostán do Bhanaltrain £50 de; is chun cabhrú le lucht imirce agus le daoine bhí ar fostú ar thailte roinnte a húsáidfear £2,000 de; agus is in aghaidh Eilithe Fuascailte faoi Alt 35 den Acht Talmhan, 1939, £100 de.

Tá laigheadú de £5,885 déanta ar Thuarastail, Páigh agus Liúntaisí faoi Rannán A. Folúntais a fágadh gan líonadh agus mion-atharuithe a rinneadh maidir leis an bhfuirinn na príomh-chúiseanna atá leis an laigheadú seo. Tá tuarastail na ndaoine, idir lucht oifige agus lucht fostaíochta lasmuich, atá ar iasacht ag Ranna eile ina muirear ar an Rannán seo.

Tá laigheadú de £7,000 ar Chostaisí Taistil faoi Rannán B. Isé faoi ndear é seo ach roinnt chigirí a thabhairt ar iasacht do Ranna eile le haghaidh oibre speisialta atá le déanamh de dhruim na práinne atá ann faoi láthair.

Is ar éigean is gá éinní a rá faoi Rannáin C, D, E, F, agus G ach amháin gur lugha an méid atá á lorg faoi gach ceann aca; tá laigheadú de £2,000 déanta faoi Rannán F—Fochostaisí in Oifig an Atúrnae.

Is chuige Rannán H chun ús agus ciste fiach-laigheaduithe d'íoc ar Bhannaí Talmhan ar n-a dtabhairt amach in aghaidh an tsíntiúis ón Stát i gcóir riail-phraghais Estát Talmhan Tionóntuithe agus praghais Estát Bhanc Náisiúnta na Talmhan agus maidir leis an gCiste Costaisí. Thárla an laigheadú de £500 tré Bhannaí Talmhan le haghaidh an Chiste Chostaisí, a tugadh amach sa mbreis, a chur ar ceal. Is gnáthach meadú beag, chun íoc as imeachta nua, do thárlachtaint gach bliain.

Is chuige Rannán J chun soláthair d'fhonn slánú a dhéanamh ar easnamh sa teacht isteach as tailte nea-thionóntuithe ar n-a gceannach faoi na hAchtanna Talmhan, 1923-39. Baineann roinnt altán éigcinnte leis ar deacair a gcostas a mheas roimh ré. Le blianta beaga anuas, ámh, laigheaduíodh an méid a lorgtar faoi'n Rannán seo de bharr forálacha Ailt 33 den Acht Talmhan, 1936. Foráltar leis an alt sin gur tuigthe paistí talmhan nea-thionóntuithe a mbíonn na coinníollacha orduithe ina dtaobh cólíonta do bheith luaidhte sa liost faoi Alt 24 den Acht Talmhan, 1931. Níl ach £3,500 á lorg i mbliana.

Is chuige Rannán K chun ús agus ciste fiach-laigheaduithe d'íoc ar an gcion de phraghas tailte Bhanc na Talmhan agus Coiste-thailte is muirear ar an Stát. Ní théigheann mórán atharuithe riamh ar an méid a theastuíonn faoi'n Rannán seo agus ní gá éinní a tá mar gheall air. Tá na Comhar-Chumainn Fheirmeoireachta ar fad scurtha um an dtaca so. Sé an méid céanna, eadhon, £17,300 a fuarthas anuraidh agus atáthar a lorg i mbliana.

Níl sna méideanna atá luaidhte faoi Rannáin L, M, agus P ach comharthaí sóirt.

Isé rud le n-a mbaineann Rannán N ach le roimh-íocanna airgid chun íocaíochtaí, ar n-a n-ordú leis an Acht Talmhan, 1931, d'íoc faid a bítear ag feitheamh aisíoca ionta ó na daoine bhíos freagarthach ina n-íoc i gcás na n-imeacht ceannaigh i dtaobh na ngabháltas do chaitheamh amach ina dhiaidh sin no an phraghais cheannaigh d'atharú. Ní foláir na Bannaí Talmhan oiriúnacha tugtar amach i leith na ngabháltas san d'fhuascailt agus ní mór soláthar a dhéanamh i gcóir suimeanna bheidh, b'fheidir, le n-íoc le tionóntaithe no le tiarnaí talmhan na ngabháltas sin. Isé cúis ar fad nach mór atá leis an laigheadú mór de £55,000 ná go raibh méid mí-chuimseardha ag teastáil faoi'n Rannán seo anuraidh chun Cuntas Fiunraíochta as a n-íoctaí caiteachas faoi'n Rannán so roimhe sin do ghlanadh. Toisc deireadh do bheith leis an Sean-chuntas Fiunraíochta seo, agus toisc an atharuithe atá tagtha de dhruim an Achta Talmhan, 1939, ar an modh chun deighleáil le Bannaí Talmhan Breise in Estáit ina bhfuil na Cistí dáilithe—tré n-ar cuireadh deireadh leis na Bannaí sin d'fhuascailt in airgead—meastar gur leor £5,000 fá choinne na roimh-íocanna bhéas le déanamh faoi'n Rannán seo i mbliana.

An tsuim a cuireadh ar fáil annuraidh faoi Rannán O i bhfuirm Roimh-íocanna chun íoc as oibreachta Bancánachta agus oibreachta eile a choinneál i dtreo bhí méid mí-chuimseardha inti sin freisin toisc na dtairisgeana bhí faoi bhreithniú an tráth sin; ach fágann an laigheadú de £2,000 atá á dhéanamh i mbliana gan ach méid measardha bheith ag teastáil arís.

Isé fé ndear an méadú de £5,000 faoi Rannán Q ach an soláthar is gá dhéanamh—de dhruim roimh-íocanna breise i bhfuirm Bannaí Talmhan a bhéas le tabhairt amach i mbliana— maidir leis na blianachta le n-a n-aisíocfar na roimh-íocanna sin d'athscrúdú, rud a fhágfaidh easnamh le slánú i gCiste na mBannaí Talmhan.

An méid atá á iarraidh faoi Rannán R, chun íoc as imeachta ceannaigh atá ag feitheamh fós faoi Shean-Achtanna Talmhan na mblian 1903 agus 1909, níl ann ach £1,000 i mbliana i gcomparáid leis an £2,000 do cuireadh ar fáil anuraidh. Meastar gur leor an tsuim seo le haghaidh aon chásanna is féidir a chríochnú taobh istigh den bhliain. Ní mór is gá a chaitheamh faoi aon cheann de na Rannáin S, T, agus V agus ní gá éinní a rá fútha.

Tá an méadú de £200 faoi Rannán U ag teastáil chun slánuithe an easnaimh i gCiste na dTemmorálachtaí Eaglaise ar n-a theacht de dhruim riaráiste a chistiú, agus íocaíochtaí bliantúla a ath-scrúdú, faoi Alt 18 den Acht Talmhan, 1933, mar a leathnuíodh é le hAlt 28 den Acht Talmhan, 1939. Tá laigheadú de £2,000 ar an méid atá á lorg faoi Rannán W i mbliana, mar táthar ag brath air go mbeidh níos lugha ag teastáil le haghaidh táillí lóisteála agus costaisí is iníoctha le Cláradóirí Contae as imeachta chun riaráiste Blianachtaí Talamh-Cheannaigh a bhaint amach.

Rannán nua iseadh Rannán X atá á thabhairt isteach chun airgead a chur ar fáil le haghaidh Roimh-íocanna faoi Alt 43 den Acht Talmhan, 1939, alt a chuireas ar chumas Choimisiún na Talmhan roimh-íoc a thabhairt do cheannuitheoir ghabháltais fhaillitheora. An £500 atáthar a lorg, meastar gur leor é le haghaidh aon roimh-íocanna den tsórt san a déanfar i mbliana.

Tá laigheadú de £14,325 ar na Leithreasaí i gCabhair i gcomparáid le Leithreasaí na bliana anuraidh. In Altán á 4 tá laigheadú de £20,000 tagtha ar an bhfarasbarr ioncuim ó Chuntaisí Cíosa agus Uis. Is as suncála a thagann furmhór an ioncuim ó Chuntaisí Cíosa agus Uis fá láthair agus is beag an farasbarr a bhíonn ann aon bhliain. In Altán a 9 tá laigheadú de £1,000 ar na fáltaisí Ilghnéitheacha, ach ar an taobh eile tá méadú de £7,000 ar an teacht isteach o Bhlianachtaí Breise agus ó Airgead Fuascailte faoi Altán a 6. Bhéarfar faoi deara go bhfuil mionaltán amháin a bhí ann anuraidh ar lár i mbliana, mar do hathghairmeadh Alt 51 den Acht Talmhan, 1931, le hAlt 12 den Acht Talmahan, 1936, agus bhí deireadh i Mí na Samhna seo caithte leis an tréimhse chun "suimeanna breise" d'aisíoc.

Níl eolas beacht iomlán le fáil fós ar na príomh-chúramaí bhí idir láimh ag Coimisiún na Talmhan i gcaitheamh na bliana dar chríoch an 31adh Márta seo caithte ach is féidir a rá go ndearnadh 39,000 acra de thalamh nea-thionóntuithe do roinnt. Laigheadú mór é seo i gcomórtas leis an réimsí fairsinge roinntí i gcaitheamh na mblianta beaga atá caithte; ach nuair a cuimhnítear ar na deacrachtaí do bhain leis an scéal sarar ritheadh an tAcht Talmhan, 1939, i Mí Lúnasa seo caithte, chífear a fhiúntaighe atá sé mar thoradh ar shaothar Choimisiún na Talmhan, agus níorbh fholáir don fhuirinn oibriú go cruaidh chun é thabhairt chun críche. Níl imeachta chun tailte a thógaint á mbunú anois chó tapaidh agus a bhídís, toisc é bheith riachtanach fearachas a chleachtadh agus fós de dhruim an scéim curadóireachta éigeanta bheith i bhfeidhm. Mar sin féin, an méid talmhan a bhfuil imeachta ar bun faoi láthair chun é thógaint (go toilteanach no go héigeanta), meastar gur leor é chun oibre cuibhe i bhfuirm roinnte go ceann cúpla blian eile.

Tá ullmhúchán déanta chun Imirce Gasraí go dtí Coilíneachtaí ar na tailte fairsinge a leathnú, agus tugadh trí chomhluadar fhichead le deireannas ó Ghaeltacht Chonamara go Coliíneacht nua i mBaile Almhan, Co. na Midhe; tá chuile chosúlacht ann go n-eireoidh go geal leo. Faoi'n Imirce seo na nGasraí tá os cionn céad comhluadar lonnuithe cheana féin i iár na hEireann. Maidir le hEstáit de Thalamh Tionóntuithe chuir an laigheadú atá déanta ar an bhfuirinn moill, ar ndóigh, ar an obair a bhaineann le húnaeracht ghabháltas do dhílsiú i dtionónta-cheannuitheorí, ach táthar ag súil nach mbeidh ann ach moill shealadach.

Tuairim's £644,000 a caitheadh anuraidh ar Oibreacha chun Estáit d'Fheabhsú. Níl an tsuim seo ach beagán níos lugha ná an méid a chosain an gnó so an bhliain roimhe sin—an bhliain is aoirde bhí an caiteachas. Is ar oibreacha feabhsúcháin ar thailte a bhíothas tar éis a thógaint agus a roinnt sna blianta roimhe sin a caitheadh go leor den airgead seo, ar ndóigh. Tá bailiú na mBlianacht Talamh-Cheannaigh ag dul ar aghaidh réasúnta maith mar is gnáth. Tá cúig seachtód faoi'n gcéad den mhéid a bhí le bailiu faoí Ghála Mhí na Samhna agus Mhí na Nodlag anuraidh bailithe cheana féin.

Mr. Davin

I was rather amazed to discover that none of the leading lights of the Opposition Party had a word to say on this Estimate. I take it that they are all quite in agreement with the policy of the Ministry and with the administration of the commissioners. There are just a few points which I should like to raise, even though I may be accused of having raised questions of the same kind on Estimates in previous years. In the statement made by the Minister, it is admitted that the acreage of land divided during the past year has fallen to the very low figure of 39,000. That is certainly a very small acreage to be divided when compared with previous years, either under the present or the previous Ministry. I assume that the same policy is likely to be pursued during the present year.

The Minister, however, says that the available staff in the Land Commission are likely to be provided with, I suppose, full-time employment for the next few years in connection with operations for the division of lands which have already been investigated He said:—

"The area of land, for the acquisition of which proceedings, both voluntary and compulsory, are pending is, however, considered sufficient to provide a reasonable quota for division over the next few years."

Will the Minister say whether the quota which he has in mind is likely to exceed the 40,000 acres divided during the past year, or whether the acreage to be divided over the period referred to in the Minister's statement is to be increased and, if so, to what extent? I am aware and other Deputies are aware that a considerable number of officers hither to employed by the Land Commission in connection with preliminary investigation work and other work have been transferred to another Department of State, and that must be taken as evidence of the decision of the Government to shut down further work of that kind during whatever period has been decided upon. Is it to be understood definitely that no further preliminary work will be undertaken by the Land Commission officials during the next few years, and that the work of the Land Commission is to be confined solely to cases already in hands, or cases where landowners have entered objections on the ground of acquisition or price to proceedings already instituted by the commissioners?

In that respect I would be glad if the Minister could supply information as to the number of cases on appeal, particularly since the outbreak of the European War, and whether the outbreak of the European War has encouraged landowners to appeal to a greater extent on the question of price than was done previous to that period. I have no information on the matter, but I am inclined to suspect that landowners were tempted to enter objections on the question of price to a greater extent than they had been previously doing, assuming, and I hope wrongly assuming, that the price of land was going to be advanced in the same way as it was in the European War 25 years ago. Information on that point would be very interesting to Deputies and, if the Minister has such information at his disposal, I would be very glad if he would give us the figures, even if they are only approximate, as to the acreage of land involved in cases awaiting decision on appeal.

I have spoken in this House before as to the operations of the Land Commission in connection with the division of land. I am prepared to admit that no matter who divides land, no matter what inspector or body of commissioners is in existence, no matter what Minister or Ministry is in office when estates are divided, there are bound to be complaints, mainly because there is not enough land available in most areas to hand over to those who are anxious and willing to work it. I wish the Minister would give the House definite particulars regarding the order of preference which should be given to applicants on the division of estates. I understood that preference was given first to persons who lost employment owing to the acquisition of estates, next to uneconomic holders who were or were not-tenants on the estate, but living within a reasonable radius, then evicted tenants, cottage tenants and suitable landless men. I received a large number of complaints during the past few years from deserving cottage tenants, highly qualified agricultural labourers with grown-up families, who have been ignored in the division of estates convenient to where their cottages are situate. I submitted the complaints to the Land Commission, but naturally they came in after schemes for the division of the estates were put into operation. I hope the Minister will have no objection to telling the House and particularly those interested the order of preference laid down for the guidance of the inspectors responsible for the preparation of division schemes, and what order of preference qualified cottage tenants would be entitled to get under that scheme. It was understood during the term of office of the previous Government, as well as this Government, that applicants residing within a radius of two miles of an estate, provided there was sufficient land, would get preference. That order has not been put into operation as far as the claims of genuine cottage tenants are concerned.

There is a good case in land division schemes for giving consideration to the claim of a cottage tenant who does not want to become a farmer, but wishes to retain his right to work as an agricultural labourer, a road worker, or to employment that would give him a cash return, to at least five acres, and to make it possible for him to undertake the tilling of two or three acres and grazing a cow or a calf on the remainder. I admit that a cottage tenant, if regarded as a suitable applicant, must make up his mind definitely on that matter, and must inform the Land Commission inspector whether he intends to become a farmer, whether he is willing to work what is called an economic holding, or to have an additional acreage attached to his plot while still retaining his rights as an agricultural labourer or road worker. I know very deserving applicants of the cottage tenant type who were ignored. I am sorry to say that while they were ignored land was given in some cases to other persons who let or sub-let the land after receiving it.

What is the policy of the Land Commission in regard to persons who get land and refuse to work it, or who let it? I could understand the case of a good type of person who got land at a period when it was too late to work it for the current year, but I cannot understand the attitude of a person who insists on letting such land for one, two or three years after being put into possession, especially when there are other more deserving applicants living in the locality, who are willing to work it, if the commissioners were prepared to give it to them. Everybody is anxious to assist the Government at this particular period, by impressing upon the people the importance of tilling the largest acreage possible. The closing down of acquisition work or preliminary inspection work appears to me to be in conflict with the policy of the Ministry to get the greatest acreage under tillage. The small holders and the landless men are willing to till all the land that the Government would like them to till. It is well known that it is the largest owners who do not till any reasonable percentage of their land. I brought a few glaring cases in my constituency under the notice of the Department, where a large number of cottage tenants had not sufficient land to graze a cow or to provide themselves with vegetables, while 1,000 acres convenient to which Deputy Hogan resides, were under grass. If Deputy Hogan takes part in the debate I should like to hear what he has to say about that land. I have not seen it recently. What percentage of land in Shinrone area is under tillage now compared with the percentage under tillage in the last three or four years?

I am sure Deputy Hogan will agree with me when I say that I should like to see that land acquired and divided amongst deserving applicants with large families, who are quite willing to work it in order to provide for their families instead of sending them to England to look for work. In the local District Court people were summoned for having cows trespassing on the roads because they could not get grazing rights from the landlords concerned. I raised that case in this House by way of a question on two or three occasions within the last five or ten years, but the acquisition of the land is as near to-day—I am subject to correction by the Minister—as it was then.

I want to refer again to the employment of men on Land Commission improvement work. I raised this question in writing on numerous occasions, the complaint being that the Land Commission had refused work of that kind to registered unemployed persons, while people with other means of livelihood were engaged. Under existing circumstances it is a shame to give work of that kind to persons with other means of livelihood, while registered unemployed who are willing to do it, are a charge on the State because of their failure to get work of any kind. I do not wish to discuss the cases now, because I have not given the Minister what I regard as reasonable notice, but I have sent the Department particulars about them within the last 48 hours. They are not the first glaring cases of the kind that I have been compelled to bring under notice. Does the Minister agree, if there are such cases, that it is right for officials to take men away from farms where they are working, and to give them Land Commission work while registered unemployed are available in the area?

I want to know whether he approves of the policy of giving big farmers' sons work on schemes of this kind, and leaving other persons equally well qualified and more deserving, walking about the roads or going to the employment exchanges one or two days a week. The money that helps to carry out this valuable type of work has been collected from all classes of taxpayers and not from that section of taxpayers who are Fianna Fáil supporters. There is no justification for confining the employment available— as has been done not on one but on several occasions—to selected individuals. In that connection, I suggest to the Minister—I hope he will agree with me—that it is very undesirable that Land Commission gangers should be put in charge of works of this kind in their native counties. If fair play is to be given in the allocation of this work, Land Commission gangers should not be natives of the county where the work is being carried out. I think that that has led to some of the complaints I have come across. If these people were not so closely associated with the residents of the area where the work is being carried out, these complaints would not, in some cases, have arisen.

I hope that the complaint I have sent to the Minister within the last 48 hours will be carefully investigated. I agree that I have not given sufficient time for a proper investigation for the purpose of this debate. I do not want to make use of discussions on Estimates for that purpose. I raise cases in this House only when I fail to get a reply in a reasonable period. Since I came here in 1922, I have forwarded 95 per cent. of the complaints I have received to the Government Departments concerned. I have endeavoured to do my work as a Deputy by correspondence because I want to give the officials concerned a fair opportunity of looking into the cases rather than chasing after a Minister who knows nothing about them. Deputies who have been here a short time must be wasting the time of a number of Ministers by calling into their offices without previous notice. The Minister will receive you sympathetically, tell you that he will inquire into the matter and send you away with a shake hands. I prefer to wait until the case is investigated and then approach the Minister if the case is sufficiently serious. I do not trouble Ministers much on that score.

The Land Commission has the reputation of being the laziest State Department in the world. They send out a number of those buff-coloured acknowledgment forms, but they are never followed by an answer to a specific question. These acknowledgment forms are worthless and a waste of money. So far as I am concerned, the Minister can keep all his acknowledgement forms for himself seeing that there is such a paper shortage and I will wait until such time as I can get an intelligent answer such as is usually given by other State Departments. I wonder what percentage of the letters written to the Land Commission are answered within the lifetime of the commissioners themselves.

There is another matter to which I feel justified in referring. I raised it on previous occasions, and I shall keep raising it at every suitable opportunity until such time as it is put on a satisfactory basis. I have written on innumerable occasions to the Land Commission about the delay in providing houses for people who have been provided with holdings. Three years ago, three and a half years ago and four years ago, I wrote to the Land Commission about their failure to provide proper housing accommodation, as promised, to people who had got economic holdings. There is no reasonable excuse for the failure of the commissioners to provide, in three or four years, houses for persons who got economic holdings. I have written to the Land Commission within the last few weeks about a man who was given an economic holding in exchange for another holding in 1935 and who is still waiting for a house. Worse than that, he is waiting to bring the woman who is to be his wife into the house. It is bad enough not to give a man a house within a reasonable radius of his holding, but it is a serious thing for the Minister and Commissioners to have the charge made against them that they are really responsible for what may yet turn out to be a breach of promise.

I have written to the Land Commission within the past few weeks—there are a number of houses involved in this case in my constituency—regarding the delay in erection of houses. The work of erection in this case has been going on for three and a half years and, in the case of at least one house, the roof is not on yet and the man cannot get possession. Is the Minister prepared to defend that kind of activity—or inactivity, as I have been reminded I should have said? If there is not sufficient staff in that section of the Land Commission, then get staff and, in the name of common sense, get the work done in a reasonable time. Failure to build these houses within a reasonable time will involve the taxpayers in increased charges in the immediate future. If the work had been completed before the war, the cost would have been much less than it will be now. Who will pay for that except the taxpayers? Would the Minister say what the position is of contractors who undertook to build houses at a certain price before the war and who have either not commenced or not completed the work? Will an increase be given to the contractors, who will have to pay higher prices for materials, following upon the war, than they would have been obliged to pay if there had been no war, or if they had finished the work before the war commenced? I had a case of that kind brought to my notice, but it is not a case of one individual being affected. That type of complaint applies to contractors in every part of the country. I ask the Minister to tell the House what the position of these contractors will be, and whether a percentage will be added to the contract price.

On previous occasions, I have objected, and I repeat the objection now, to the policy of the Land Commission in moving into areas persons from outside before the rightful claims of local, deserving applicants have been satisfied. I see by the statement issued by the Minister that a large number of migrants have been brought into the midlands. The Minister has not given the total cost of the removal of those people from areas in the Gaeltacht to the midland counties. From a limited experience and knowledge of the operations of these migrants, I can truthfully say that the migrants brought into my areas from Gaeltacht areas have been an absolute failure. They come from a part of the country where farming, as it is understood in the midland counties, is unheard of. They come into an area where they cannot teach any of the local applicants anything about the progressive or the profitable working of land. I have known cases where some of these people came along, their fares were paid, they were provided with housing accommodation and a farm and they got loans from the Agricultural Credit Corporation. They are bankrupt to-day. They are bankrupt in other respects, too. They are bankrupt in the intelligence and experience that would enable them to work land in the way in which it is normally worked in midland counties. It would be far better and cheaper for a Government that is sincerely anxious, as we all are, to provide the people of the Gaeltacht with a better means of livelihood, to reclaim the lands in the Gaeltacht and leave those people there on the reclaimed lands rather than bring them into an unknown area where they know nothing of the kind of work they are expected to carry on for the remainder of their lives.

What is the cost per family in putting people from the Gaeltacht areas into midland counties? Some of these people have been given a weekly wage. I wonder would the Minister agree that, even with a weekly wage, they are still failures? I must protest against the continuance of the policy of the Land Commission in bringing into any area migrants from the West when there are suitable local people waiting for land and well entitled to it. I believe it is a policy that is bound to create contention and turmoil, particularly when the deserving applicants in a district are left out of consideration. That policy should only be pursued where there is division of large estates. I know of cases where it is being pursued in connection with the division of very small estates. In one case brought to his notice quite recently, the Minister asserted that all the deserving local applicants had been catered for and it was the intention of the Land Commission to put into this area, where the small estate was being divided, persons who would not be welcomed by a brass and reed band.

In one case, in answer to Deputy O'Higgins, it was admitted that one of the persons who received a holding was an old age pensioner, a person over 80 years of age. I am reliably informed that the pensioner was propped up in bed by the Land Commission official in order to enable her to sign for the holding. I know of more deserving applicants than that old person, and the Minister is well aware that any person who receives a holding is supposed to be competent to work it. This particular holding has been passed on to a very prominent local politician. I am now stating that on the basis of the information which appears here in the Official Reports. There are many more deserving applicants than this old age pensioner or the migrants who apparently are going to be pushed into this locality. In that and every other case, as long as I am a Deputy, while there are local deserving applicants available, I will protest against this policy of migration.

Dr. O'Higgins

I find myself very much in agreement with the remarks of my colleague of the Labour Party, Deputy Davin. In the early passages of the Minister's opening statement he outlined the present policy of the Land Commission, namely, a slowing down, a curtailment of activity, and the lending of members of the staff to other Departments. I think that is a policy which should be very carefully examined by this House. We are in a war situation and we are told that one of the main difficulties of this war is the question of supply, and the most desirable thing that people can do is to produce more food. At the same time as we have a cry on the lips of every well-intentioned person to produce more food, we deliberately refrain from the giving out of land to produce the food.

The policy of the Land Commission and of the Department of Agriculture at the present moment seems to be that of one completely contradicting the other. In so far as the Minister for Agriculture is entitled to speak for the Government, he says it is the policy of the Government to have increased tillage. In so far as the Minister for Lands is entitled to speak for the Government, we are told the policy of the Government is to give less land, to produce less tillage. I think some further explanation is required from the Minister on that particular point. Further, if we are to have any sense of responsibility and any appreciation as to what we are voting money for, and why, it should not be sufficient for any Minister to say that large numbers of the staff of the Land Commission have been lent to other Departments, but the payment of their salaries is still being borne by the Land Commission. We should be told how many members of the staff of the Land Commission are on loan to other Departments, to what other Departments they have gone and what is the amount of salaries that should be subtracted from the cost of the Land Commission and shown on the Votes of other Departments.

I noticed, particularly within the last couple of years, rapidly growing discontent in my own constituency with the activities of the Land Commission. I am perfectly prepared to accept now, as in the past, the fact that every Government official does his work impartially and honestly and, in so far as there is a departure from what appears to be justice, that departure is necessitated by high political influence being brought to bear on the individual. There are two festering sores in one of the counties I represent, both of them, I would say, nothing short of a scandal. I would be inclined to think, from statements made at public meetings, that I am voicing not only the opinions of the people in the area, but the opinions of my Fianna Fáil colleagues when I say that in certain areas the division of land recently is nothing short of a gross scandal.

There is one particular estate that Deputy Davin referred to. It was a comparatively small estate and it was divided in an area where there is a very considerable number of uneconomic holdings and a very considerable number of landless men. In that particular area—I have no hesitation in referring to it in a detailed kind of way because for the past 12 months all the facts have been placed at the disposal of the Land Commission— numerous applications have been made to me and other Deputies to have the thing put verbally to the Land Commission. We have done so, but nothing has been done by them. In an area where there are a great many uneconomic holders and numbers of landless men, we find the son-in-law of a very ancient old-age pensioner of great political importance but not of the type that would be eligible for division of land, getting a substantial allocation through the back door, through the very edge. We find the dying mother-in-law being given a portion of land and the funeral a week after. Then the land passes to the ineligible son-in-law from another district.

I do not believe any Minister is prepared to stand over that type of activity here. I am also prepared to accept the fact that no inspector would take the responsibility for doing a thing like that, except as a result of political direction. In the same land division a number of people—they may have been uneconomic holders from a distance—were taken and planted in the middle of these land-hungry uneconomic holders of land. That is a thing that no inspector has discretion to do, and he can only do it as a result of higher direction, the result of orders. Leaving out the question of migrants from outside counties, I take it that the principle always laid down and accepted by the Dáil was that the purpose of land division was to give the land to uneconomic holders and landless men. That is the first principle. The strongest claims were those of applicants who lived in the immediate neighbourhood where the land was divided and were qualified for a portion of the land. The principle was that migrants from elsewhere within the county would only be brought in when the claims of the qualified people in the immediate locality had been satisfied.

In one of the cases to which I am referring the Minister in answering a Parliamentary question would not dare hint even that the claims of the qualified people in the immediate neighbourhood were satisfied before outsiders were brought in either by the front or back door. The Minister evaded that portion of the question by saying that the claims of people in the immediate neighbourhood had been considered. The question was, had they been considered before the outsiders were brought in? In the division of that particular estate all the principles which we were led to expect and respect were completely trampled under foot.

Within a few miles of that estate, and recently too, we had another estate divided. Accepting the principle that the division of land is in order to meet the claims of uneconomic holders and landless men and in order to have the land worked, we had another estate divided and we had again a number of uneconomic holders, and a number of landless men applying for the land. In that particular case we find that one substantial portion of the land has been given to a 50-acre farmer who had only the year before sold the same amount of land as he got in this divide. He has consistently, ever since he got the last substantial portion of land, set it. The attention of the Minister and his predecessor was called to that violation of all the standards which we believed we had set up verbally and in writing, and by every possible means. But not only was a large tract of land given to this person who had previously been a comparatively big farmer, but some of that large tract of land was a field surrounding the household of one uneconomic applicant who received no portion of land. In that particular area alone, in that particular division alone, the evidence is that, out of some couple of hundred acres given out, 75 per cent. has been continuously advertised and set on the 11 months' system ever since it was given to these people.

With the best intentions in the world mistakes will be made. Mistakes will be made by everybody. A person cannot be condemned because he makes a mistake, but persons deserve to be condemned because they make mistakes and continue to make them. Now, when land is given it is not given finally and for all time. If, in the division of land, it is immediately afterwards ascertained that land has been given to people who do not require it, and who advertise in the local papers for somebody else to take it off their hands, then it is obvious that a mistake has been made and that mistake should be rectified immediately by taking back the land and giving it to somebody who wants it.

Why are we asking for hundreds of thousands of pounds? What is the case behind the demand? What is the justification for abstracting that money from the pockets of the taxpayers? Simply because it was always understood from the first time in this country that the cry for land division went up that the principle was to take land from those who did not want it and give it to those who did. That is the only justification for the immense cost of this Department of Lands. We are not justified in voting money if we vote money for taking land from people who want it and giving it to people who quite definitely do not want it. That is evidenced by the fact that when they get it they immediately advertise for somebody else to take it off their hands. In both these estates there is more than a suspicion of relentless political interference with an official who, as far as I can see, has always done his work fairly. The Minister is as closely acquainted with the facts and the circumstances as I am. I ask him when he is winding-up the debate to justify, as far as he can, the choice of applicants and the division made with regard to the Kelly estate in Ballyvealeen and elsewhere and with regard to the Murphy estate outside Mountrath.

Mr. Norton

We are being asked in this Estimate to-day to vote a considerable amount of money for the administration of the Land Commission for the next 12 months. In connection therewith I want to raise some matters appropriate to the work of that Department. I agree with Deputy Davin that the Land Commission is probably not only the slowest Department in Ireland, but I do not believe it is possible to find a Department which manages its affairs in such a sluggish and slothful manner as the Land Commission does. There was a time when one would display blissful innocence and optimism in writing to the Land Commission asking them what they proposed to do about certain districts. But long experience of the easy-going, crab-like work of that Department has shown that the best way to get information is to put down a Parliamentary question. Then you make somebody stretch his arm and write some memoranda for the Minister indicating what the reply will be. Anybody nowadays who writes letters to the Land Commission asking them what they propose to do about the acquisition of land is only wasting his time, wasting paper and causing unnecessary annoyance to the people who have to open the letters. If he imagines that he will get a reply this side of the grave, well I cannot cure him of that kind of optimism.

I do not know of any more unsatisfactory Department to write a letter to than the Land Commission. You may write them any kind of letter, you may emphasise that it is urgent to know what is happening, you may tell them that by your effort you are trying to prevent some local agrarian dispute, and say that you would appreciate the favour of an early reply: it does not matter what kind of letter you write to the Land Commission, you get no reply at all beyond a buff acknowledgment form, often written by a person who cannot spell the name of the Deputy correctly. Very frequently, if you ask for a reply to a previous letter, you get a separate acknowledgment bearing an entirely different reference number, indicating that your subsequent letter has not been connected with the file at all. There is some administrative female machine in the place engaged in sending out acknowledgments to Deputies who write letters to the Land Commission, without any regard whatever, either to the interest which the Deputy takes in the matter, or to the manner in which the Land Commission do their business. I join with Deputy Davin in appealing to the Land Commission to send out no more of these acknowledgment forms. I have such a collection of them that if, in these days of paper shortage, the Minister arranges to send a lorry to my office I will be glad to hand them over. One would imagine, looking through the Estimate, that there was sufficient staff in the Land Commission to enable Deputies to get replies with reasonable expedition. I venture to say, and I suppose this has been the experience of other Deputies as well, that if you write 100 letters to the Land Commission in the year about estates of one kind or another, you probably will not get ten replies, if one eliminates the formal acknowledgments. When I say that you get ten replies to 100 letters, I fear that I am giving the Land Commission credit for a degree of activity which, in fact, it is not entitled to claim.

There are some other aspects of the Land Commission work that I would like to get some information on. The information was not conveyed in the Minister's opening statement. We had a declaration by the Government on the outbreak of the emergency situation that it was their desire that tillage should be encouraged, and that, in order to secure that, tillage was to be made compulsory to the extent of requiring persons to till 12½ per cent. of their arable land. One would imagine that the Land Commission would take the view that the way to encourage tillage was to break up the grass ranches throughout the country to ensure that land would be given to small uneconomic holders and landless men, because experience shows that the smaller the farm the greater is the area under tillage. But, instead of breaking up the grass ranches and the untenanted land of the country, instead of acquiring and dividing land, the Land Commission appear to have decided, at a time when tillage was never more necessary, to stop initiating proceedings for the acquisition of new land. The Land Commission apparently intend to content themselves with dividing such lands as they have on hands. As regards much of the land which is on their hands, they are sub-letting and sub-letting even for grazing at a very substantial profit to the Land Commission. That is the policy they are pursuing instead of dividing that land and giving it to uneconomic holders and landless men.

I would like the Minister to tell us why, if the Government believe that compulsory tillage is desirable and that an increase in the area under tillage is nationally beneficial, the Land Commission should decide to adopt the policy of not acquiring any new estates for division. It seems to me that the best way to ensure an increase of the area under tillage would be to break up the grass lands through the country, and put families on them so that the holdings may become self-contained and economic. If the Land Commission were to do that it would be ensuring that there would be a much greater area under tillage. Nationally, it surely would be better to do that than be allowing the ranchers to retain the grass lands which they cannot profitably use. From any point of view, there is no policy which will give a better return in national productivity than the acquisition of these lands and their division amongst small uneconomic holders.

I have had cases in my constituency, particularly of lands adjoining towns, not necessarily urbanised towns, but towns where perhaps there are town commissioners and in other cases where they are still under the jurisdiction of the boards of health, which show just one tendency. That tendency, in the Counties of Kildare and Carlow, manifests itself in this way, that the small man cannot get grass for a cow. He cannot get land at any price. He cannot even get conacre because the folk around those towns who have got the large estates prefer to let them in 50 or 100 acre lots to wealthy ranchers for grazing purposes rather than make small, separate lettings to small men who have to depend for the supply of milk on their ability to get grass for a cow and on being able to get a small area of land in conacre for the production of vegetables to meet the requirements of their family. The most surprising part of all this business is that while in peace times those people appear to have been entrenched in that kind of wasteful agricultural economy, by having large areas of land unprofitably used, even in a war situation they are now getting a new lease of life from the Land Commission because of the futile and shortsighted policy that the latter are pursuing in not acquiring fresh lands for division during the emergency situation.

One would have thought that, taking the long view of the matter, the Land Commission and the Government generally would have said: "Whatever our rate of progress was in peace times in the matter of accelerating the acquisition and division of land, the tempo of acquisition has got to be increased during this war situation." The Land Commission must feel that its main function is to go asleep, although other Departments may feel that new burdens are being thrown on them. The Land Commission must feel that there was no activity expected from them the moment war broke out in Europe. They simply sit back and say: "Oh, well in that situation we do nothing; we will not acquire any new land; we will merely content ourselves with accelerating the pastime of dividing the acres which we have on hands and we will do that in our new leisure." They probably are going to do that in a much more comfortable and leisurely fashion than one experienced in the past. There is probably no better example of this go-slow policy of the Land Commission, in the matter of the acquisition and division of land, than that furnished by statistics which I have obtained by means of Parliamentary question. I have some statistics here dealing with the Counties of Carlow and Kildare. I propose to quote them for the Minister in the hope that they may disturb his calm and nonchalance in respect of the activities of his Department.

In the year 1935-36 the Land Commission acquired in the County Kildare 9,500 acres, and divided 7,000 acres. In the year 1936-37, it acquired 4,800 acres and divided 5,200. In 1937-38, it acquired 3,100 acres and divided 2,800. In 1938-39, it acquired 3,000 acres and divided 1,700. The answer to a Parliamentary question which I put down to-day gives the information that in the year 1939-40 the Land Commission acquired in the County Kildare 2,800 acres and divided 1,200 acres. Look at the trend. In 1935-36 the Land Commission acquired 9,500 acres and that has fallen to 2,800 acres—a very substantial reduction. The Land Commission during the past year acquired about 25 per cent. of the land which they acquired in 1935-36 in County Kildare.

The case of County Carlow is still more striking. I wonder whether anybody is paid for any Land Commission activities in the County Carlow? In 1935-36, it acquired 244 acres—a gigantic achievement—and divided the same number of acres that year. In 1939-40, it acquired 270 acres and divided 250. In reply to a question on the 14th March I was told by the Minister for Lands that the total area of lands in the County Carlow in the hands of the Land Commission for division was 140 acres. In the County Carlow, where there are very substantial estates, cottiers cannot possibly get grass for a cow or land by con-acre.

Whatever argument there may be about the possibility of the acquisition or division of land in the County Carlow, there can be no question whatever that there are large tracts of land available for acquisition in the County Kildare. The finest land in Ireland probably is available in the County Kildare. It probably ranks with County Meath as the finest land in the whole country. There are large tracts of untenanted land there available for acquisition. The land is not half stocked even, and while you can find one man, very often an absentee landlord, owning 1,000 acres, the poor cottier, the landless man, or the uneconomic holder has no prospect whatever, at the present rate of progress by the Land Commission, of ever being able to get an acre of that land. We used to read about a white man not being able to get into Tibet. Every ranch in the County Kildare is a Tibet so far as the ordinary cottier, uneconomic holder, or landless man is concerned.

The present policy of the Land Commission gives no evidence that that condition of affairs will be remedied unless the Minister takes the matter in hands and insists that there must be a radical alteration in the policy of the Land Commission. It seems to me to be nothing short of criminal agricultural waste to see large tracts of untenanted land in County Kildare understocked and not available for people who are craving for an opportunity of tilling the land according to the policy of the Government and of enriching the nation by their activities on that land.

Another matter to which I wish to refer is the wages paid for Land Commission work. A case came to my notice to-day where a number of persons were required by the Land Commission to undertake land improvement work, and they were not all tenants of the Land Commission under the scheme of division. When they went to work and inquired what the wages were, they were informed that they were 27/- per week. The minimum paid to agricultural labourers, under the rate fixed by the Agricultural Wages Board, is 30/- per week. As a matter of fact, in this particular case on the Bobbett estate at Newbridge the work is being undertaken in an area where the minimum rate is 33/-. Yet, on this estate, the Land Commission proceed to pay 27/- per week for a normal phase of Land Commission activity. The same rate of wages that would be paid on aminor relief scheme is now being paid for the work carried out by a State Department. I should like to ask the Minister how he can justify the payment of 27/- per week to Land Commission work when the minimum for agricultural workers under the Agricultural Wages Board rates is 30/-. I suspect that the device to justify this low rate of wages will be that agricultural workers work 54 hours per week and that the Land Commission, with its mathematical mind, decided that 48-57ths worked out at 27/-.

Will the Minister say how it is possible for a person to live on a wage of 27/- per week to-day, with prices what they are, with deductions for wet days, with the possibility that no matter how long the job lasts, the worker will not draw a full week's wages in the entire period? We have to bear in mind as well that certain payments have to be made even from that low wage of 27/- for insurance purposes. I cannot imagine that the Minister would try to justify a low wage policy of that kind. It seems to me to be indefensible. The Minister when replying should give some evidence that his Department will not insist upon a low wage policy. Up to the present the Board of Works have had that unenviable reputation which earned them condemnation from north, south, east and west. Now, apparently, the Land Commission is bidding for first place in paying low wages, judging by the rate of wages paid in this instance and, I understand, in other instances. We ought to have an assurance from the Minister that the lowest wage paid for Land Commission work will be the minimum agricultural wage and that is low enough in existing circumstances to maintain a man and his wife and family.

I should also like to refer to the kind of work the Land Commission is doing in the erection of houses on lands which are being divided. I should like to get from the Minister some indication as to what the Land Commission policy is in that matter. Cases have come to my notice where an estate was divided and the Land Commission decided that they would build houses for certain allottees and that they would give a free advance and a grant towards the building of houses for two other allottees. What is the explanation for the difference in policy? Why are certain people compelled to erect their own houses with inadequate grants and advances, while others have houses erected for them by the Land Commission? I would like the Minister to clear up that point, and tell us what is the guiding principle in discrimination of that kind, so that Deputies may know where they stand in the matter.

I also want to say that I am not very much impressed by the supervision, if any, which the Land Commission exercises in the matter of the placing of contracts for the erection of new houses. I had occasion to write to the Minister about two months ago about a notorious case in the Celbridge area where a house had been erected by the Land Commission within the last three or four years. The roof of that house does not keep out water. The walls are allowing the rain-water to come in. The wife of the man who occupies the house complained that she fell down through the floor because the timber had rotted. In order to produce evidence of that to the Minister, I sent him a piece of the timber of the floor which I hope he has carefully preserved in the archives of the Land Commission, as evidence of the efficiency with which they appear to have supervised the building of the house. Here was a piece of floor that was in an absolutely worthless condition owing to dry rot after three years. The Land Commission inspector that passed that house ought to be asked for a quick explanation. It seems to me to have been just a scandalous waste of public money, that the Land Commission should pay for the erection of a house of that kind. In this particular case the woman complained to the Land Commission inspector who went down, and he could not believe that the flooring would be so defective after such a short period. He asked her what portion of the floor she fell through, and when it was pointed out to him the inspector fell through another portion of it himself.

Mr. Davin

He was a heavy weight.

Mr. Norton

That kind of administration does not reflect any credit on the Land Commission. Some steps should be taken, if the policy of erecting houses is to continue, to see they are efficiently erected, and that every fellow who imagines he can build a house, no matter how he can manage to do so, should not be regarded as a person whose tender would be acceptable to the Land Commission, unless there was previous evidence of good work, or a substantial guarantee that the house would be put into a habitable condition and would not necessitate constant repairs.

Reference has been made by Deputy Davin and by Deputy O'Higgins to migrants. I share their view. I do not think the policy of migrating people from the west to eastern counties has been successful or even taking the long view that it will be successful. According to the Banking Commission Report it takes from £1,000 to £1,200 to bring a family from the west. I think the reports of the manner in which land in eastern counties like Meath and Kildare was used by migrants do not indicate that there is likely to be any great measure of success attending the migratory activities of these people. It might be better if the Land Commission in the long run gave them £1,200 in cash to buy 4 per cent. land bonds and to live where they were. It seems to me tobe quite a useless policy to bring migrants from western areas where clay, much less land, is scarce, and to try to induce these people to take up new methods of cultivation under conditions with which they are quite unfamiliar. The results do not seem to justify the policy the Land Commission embarked upon. Whatever the policy for the Gaeltacht may be, my view is that it might be easier to industrialise it than to agriculturalise it. It seems to me that the present policy is a highly mistaken one, on the results so far available—migrating people from the Gaeltacht areas to land in Kildare and Meath with the working of which they are quite unfamiliar, and where there is a different type of agricultural economy. The experience of local people in these areas does not indicate that the experiment has so far justified itself. One might expect that the mainspring of enthusiasm would come on the installation of the migrants. The results available do not at all justify the large amount of money that has been spent on the experiment.

If the Gaeltacht problem is to be dealt with it has to be solved in some other way than by migrating people to eastern counties. It seems to me to be a shame, when so many local landless men and uneconomic holders are looking for land, who are relatively worse off than the migrants, that they have to stand by while the Land Commission is bringing others from the west to estates upon which they expected to obtain holdings. I do not know on what basis the Minister can justify a policy of that kind. It may ease discontent in the Gaeltacht area, but when talking to migrants one would not think that much had been done for them. Certainly a new problem is being created in the areas to which these people are migrated, because the impression is being given there that no matter what energy the local people put into the cultivation of land migrants who are unfamiliar with the local agricultural economy get preference over those who are anxious to get land and who could use it to advantage. The Land Commission should insist on reasonable methods of supervision of the production of crops when dividing such land.

I know that it can be said by the Minister that this is a new Department as far as he is concerned, and that his sojourn there has not enabled him to become familiar with the work. I tell the Minister and other Deputies will bear me out, that the work of the Land Commission as we see it to-day is far from satisfactory, and that there is a painfully slow process of dealing with these matters. Almost every conceivable difficulty can be found to impede the acquisition and division of land. In an emergency situation in particular the Minister could render valuable national service by insisting on the methods in the Land Commission being overhauled, so that there could be greater expedition in the acquisition and division of land, as well as evidence of a greater drive once land was acquired so as to have it divided and utilised to the full in the national interests.

Mr. McMenamin

A great deal has been said about land division, and I may say straight away that I am not concerned whether or not one acre was divided. I am convinced that the giving of a farm of 21 or 22 acres is going to create a new congestion problem. That policy may satisfy Deputy Davin and Deputy Norton, but I think they will live to regret it. I wonder has it ever occurred to Deputies that on a farm of 21 or 22 acres the net cash outgoings are roughly £1 an acre, and that the Land Commission collector and the rate collector would take that amount before one penny was left for the family. Any one who knows anything about a 21 or 22 acre farm will admit that it takes the area of that farm and what is produced on it to maintain the family without any outgoings. I submit that the area of these farms should be 40 or 50 acres in order to raise the standard of living on the farm. I have been convinced of that for years, but especially so for the last six months since the increase in the cost of living has begun to bear on people who were placed on these colonies. The migrants settled in Meath are complaining that they have not sufficient land. They are not content with 21 or 22 acres. These farms are too small to keep families of from five to ten persons in potatoes, corn, milk, poultry and other things. When it comes to providing for other outgoings there is not enough of a surplus left to meet them. The House should remember that. It is admitted by everyone that there is not enough land available for all those who seek it. If we are to approach this problem why not do it in the right way and not create another problem in the east same as we have in the west?

What really concerns me in relation to this Department is a matter I have raised for the past few years. I have contended that, on the returns of unpaid annuities and on the nulla bona returns of the Land Commission each year, the burden of unpaid annuities and rates is coming back on the neighbours of those who failed to pay and is pushing out the marginal men. This question will have to be grappled with. Deputy Norton apologised for the Minister, that he was new to the office. Unfortunately, for the past eight or nine years, this Vote has been presented by a new Minister. No Minister has an opportunity of developing policy. Would the House be startled to know that, on the halved annuities, the sum outstanding on the 31st January last was £1,228,526 whereas on the 31st January 12 months ago the figure was £1,215,404, an increase of £13,122. The number of nulla bona returns was 4,970 on the 31st January last as compared with 3,422 on the 31st January, 1939, an increase of 1,548. In the 12 months an additional 1,548 farms had not a beast on which the sheriff could make a seizure and the majority of these farms would be under £4 valuation.

I have been urging this on the Department for a number of years and I have suggested that a crisis would, eventually, come in the matter. If this process of pushing out the marginal men—the next weakest line to the men who are unfit to pay their rates or rent—goes on, a national problem will eventually be created. I have not the slightest doubt about that. It is as clear as noon-day. If the Minister understands anything about this question, I want him to tell, not the House but the country, what his policy is in respect of it. I am amazed to find that, notwithstanding the settlement of the economic war and the improvement in the price of live stock, 1,548 more farms have gone completely out of production. On the other side, the Department issues an order for compulsory tillage. That is the way we are governing the country.

Is there any other reason for this rapid step-up of the number of farms going out of production? When the Land Bill of 1933 was going through this House, the Fianna Fáil Party were crying out for the allocation of land to everybody who wanted it. They had a serious case against law costs in respect of the collection of land annuities under the machinery that previously existed. I recall attacking the machinery provided in that Bill. It appeared novel and many Deputies thought that it looked simple and would be cheap. Anybody who knew anything about that machine knew that this novel process would create enormous burdens on the farmers who happened to be unable to pay their annuities within the stipulated period. Take a county like my own where the land annuities may amount to 1/-, 5/-, 9/- or 10/-. You have to put the sheriff into motion to collect those sums. Anybody can imagine the consequences. By a coincidence, I got a letter the other day which was really not about the question of costs at all but which has a bearing on this subject. A small farmer in Donegal pays a half-yearly gale of 9/-. There were two gales due and the sheriff's officer went out and collected £2 9s. 6d. In other words, the collection of 18/- cost £1 11s. 6d. Has that anything to do with the steep step-up in the number of farms which are being crushed out of production? You are completely stripping the small farmer in this way. And we are not dealing with the full annuities but with the halved annuities. When the full annuities were being paid, the amount of arrears amounted only to about half that sum. I suggest to the Minister that his Department should review the entire position. There is no use in the House blindly proceeding in this way until we are confronted with a huge national problem. Then we shall all come in and say that something must be done.

It is not one problem we will have then; it will not be a question of dealing with these arrears, but we will be dealing with the question of the many farms completely out of production. There are Deputies here looking for land. When they were talking about land were they aware that there were 4,970 farms out of production? They must be out of production if they are not able to pay rent and rates and if there is nothing for the bailiff to seize. That is the problem that really concerns me. The work of the Department automatically goes on. The division of land will be very important. On the present basis I am not going to approve of it. My aim would be for a 50-acre farm, certainly not less than 40 acres. If I ever have any responsibility—I hope I will not—and if I have to divide land, I will make a point of giving a man what he might call a farm. Of course, if plots are required for agricultural labourers it might be possible to give them four, five or ten acres, but if I am going to make a farmer of a man I am going to give him every opportunity of being a farmer.

With regard to the Estimate generally, I am only concerned with one item, which does not involve a very big sum. Apparently the Department does not expect any floods this year, because they have reduced the amount laid aside for the maintenance of embankments. I wonder if they are going to have an arrangement with the Board of Works in the case of abnormal floods and the breaking of embankments. The amount set down here is only a nominal sum and I wonder if the Board of Works, under the employment schemes or some other machinery will, in case there is some disaster and the banks are swept away and agricultural land is flooded, repair the damage in order to save the crops.

I think in Section 10 of the Land Act of 1939 powers were taken to retain the interest on land bonds. I am prohibited from criticising legislation that the House has passed and I will only say this, that I consider that power should be exercised only in the very last extremity. I must confess I do not know anything about this class of person—I do not come from them—but we must remember that we have intervened in their lives and in no case should the interest on the bonds be retained except in a case of dire necessity. One can easily foresee the conditions of the type of people who depend upon the interest from these bonds as their means of livelihood. If the powers of Section 10 were to be exercised a cruel hardship would be imposed on the people living on the small sum of money derived from the interest on these land bonds. I appeal to the Minister, if any case of that kind arises, that this power should only be exercised in the last extremity. In cases where the circumstances are known and the people are depending on these sums of money, they should not be retained at all.

Mr. Brasier

I am somewhat at a disadvantage, inasmuch as the Minister's remarks did not convey very much to men like myself. I hope that in the Official Report his remarks will be translated into the language which appears in the pages of that volume as a general rule. I am therefore compelled to look at the various items in the Estimates and to get some information on them. In regard to subhead M., loss on unoccupied holdings, there is a sum of £5 set out. From my knowledge of the number of unoccupied holdings in the constituency I have the honour to represent, I know that that amount does not represent anything like the loss. These holdings are undoubtedly a tremendous loss to the country, inasmuch as the ordinary rates have to bear both the unpaid rates and the unpaid land annuities with which these holdings have for many years been saddled.

There is one such holding opposite the place where I live. The land at one time bore a rent of £2 an acre and the place has a substantial valuation. Similar holdings elsewhere have a substantial poor law valuation. Would it be possible to take over those holdings and use them for the purpose of subdivision making, of course, the necessary agreement with the former occupier as to what compensation he will get, either in the form of portion of the land or compensation in cash? I am not aware of the position of the Land Commission with regard to paying compensation. This whole matter is a serious blot on the policy of the Land Commission, particularly at a time when the grow more food policy is such an insistent one. People who might be occupying holdings and paying their Land Commission annuities and rates are not able to carry out the amount of tillage necessary because of the lack of capital.

Deputy Davin referred to 39,000 acres which were available for sub-division. I do not know that I would be concerned with the actual acreage that the Land Commission have acquired or that is available for sub-division. A far more important element is the class of people who are getting those lands. Men who are willing and have the necessary agricultural education to work those lands properly are essential. Agricultural education is becoming more and more necessary if we have in mind the proper economic working of land. Enough is probably not being made of the available land of the country. The giving over in a haphazard way of holdings, often of a considerable size, to men who have not the capital or the necessary experience or probably the inclination to work them, creates the type of position which was referred to in such very serious terms by the last speaker. Deputy McMenamin with his very expert legal knowledge has been able to trace out from our records the number of farms that are practically gone out of production. What can be more eloquent than the return of the sheriff to show what the position of agriculturists is in this country, when the Land Commission, with all the machinery at its hand, cannot collect the land annuities? A large number of these farms had, at some period anterior to this, been divided and given to men for whatever reasons might be accepted by the inspector as suitable. In some cases I know men said they had the necessary capital to farm the land, but we know they had not. We know they are in occupation of these farms and not having the capital they set them to other people to make money out of them. Probably that might be a very good thing. If there are people able to make money out of the land, then that would not be a great loss. It would not be such a loss as we might suspect from the figures given by Deputy McMenamin. But we know it is a step in the wrong direction to hand over the most valuable property in the country, namely, the land, to men who are incapable of making a proper use of it.

I happen to have put before the House on the Estimate last year the very serious position in our area when I enumerated a number of people who had got farms. I am aware of one man who got 37 acres. A portion of that is tilled, but most of the land is without crops. Another man, a road worker, a man who took two prizes for his cottage, got five acres and though he wanted more land he was unable to get it. There was a portion of the land on the Dinan estate adjoining Castlemartyr. That land had been devoted to forestry, though there is no doubt it could be used for agricultural purposes. Five acres were given to a man who had capital and had the necessary experience, because he once worked as an agricultural labourer. This man had a couple of horses and his five sons were in a position to help to till and reclaim the land and to pull out the stumps of trees in the forestry portion. His application was refused, though the land was unfenced.

That is one of the factors to which I would draw very serious attention. I think the Minister would probably have looked into it himself and I hope he will do something about it. There is one great factor which should influence every inspector and that is to consider the claims of the smallholders first. The smallholders, or men with perhaps even a medium farm, who have long experience of agriculture and who probably have a large family to help them, should certainly be considered. They could certainly make a better use of an addition to their farm than the man who has no previous experience of agriculture.

The man with experience has a claim over and above the landless men, no matter what any Deputy may say to the contrary, but everyone is entitled to his own opinion. The man with experience can get better economic results when his farm is enlarged than the man who has no experience of farm work but who is employed on a holding. I have no objection to an employee on an estate being given land if he has the necessary capital, but in a great many cases, though they claim they have capital, the capital is not there.

There is one item in connection with the Estimate to which I would like to draw the Minister's attention—that is the Church Temporalities Branch. I do not suppose any man pays to the Land Commission a tithe rent charge with any degree of cheerfulness. People resent paying that. They feel that the Land Commission are getting something to which they are not entitled. The height of irony has, I think, been reached in the last Land Act, when I tell you that the funding of arrears that was previously permitted for this particular section has been abolished. Large farmers have passed through as trying a crisis as any body of agriculturists could possibly have done in this country. They have passed through the trials of what was known as the economic war. They accumulated these arrears of tithe rent charges and annuities and they probably asked for time from the Land Commission. The Land Commission, to their credit, have not pressed for these accumulated arrears till now. I know I am not in a position to advocate legislation on this Vote but I am aware that before any farmer liable for tithe rent charges will get the advantage of half the tithe rent charge the arrears will have to be paid. At any rate I would appeal to the Land Commission to hold their hands and not to enforce the warrants which they have handed to the sheriffs for collection in full. These warrants amount in some cases to some hundreds of pounds.

There is a very large number of very deserving people in this country who have not yet come under the Land Acts. I refer to the sub-tenants. Unfortunately these men are not aware in many cases of the advantages they can gain by being taken under the Land Commission. Considering that the State has passed legislation to enable laboureres to purchase their cottages, surely to goodness the Land Commission can widen the position of these sub-tenants and enable many of them to come in. This is a class who should reasonably be expected to get a decided advantage by land division and have their holdings enlarged. That is a matter that is very necessary to be looked after. I am very slow to attack any Department of the Land Commission because the officials of this Department have been very lenient and I find them most courteous in all cases I bring before them. But in the sub-division branch there is a decided hardship in the case of small portions of land which are taken over for the purpose of erecting houses under the Housing Acts. A very long period elapses before the tenants of these plots can show the Housing Department they are in possession. That must eventuate in creating a very serious hardship on those people. I ask that that particular side should be expedited as fast as possible on account of the desperate need that exists. These are rural workers who suffer under this particular form of delay.

There is another section too in connection with the long leases and fee farm grants who have suffered much. A great many of these cases are pending and if they could be taken up and expedited, relief would be given to a class of men badly in need of it. I do not intend to delay the House much longer, but I do ask that where the question of compulsory tillage arises the Land Commission should remember that there are some people who are not able this year to stand up to it. They are not able to get the necessary implements or the necessary capital. These people have to ask for elemency in that direction. I am aware they have promised to do their best. When I say that, might I mention that the State is the chief culprit in this matter of compulsory tillage. There are large areas of land such as Moore Park, near Kilworth, in the possession of the Board of Works. There are over 1,000 acres there and not one sod of it has been tilled. While that is so, and while the State itself is the chief culprit, surely to goodness they cannot enforce compulsory tillage on other sections of the community who may find it very difficult to carry out these orders.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Minister for Lands has no responsibility in that connection.

Mr. Brasier

I am aware of that, Sir, but as he is the only occupant of the Front Bench now and as such represents the State, I think I am, perhaps, within my right in referring to the matter where the State itself is the chief culprit.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Minister for Lands is not responsible.

Mr. Brodrick

When one recollects the debates that have taken place in this House, and the statements made by different Ministers, one must feel rather ashamed that, 18 years after the establishment of this State, we should still be discussing the acquisition and division of land. Recalling to mind the statements made here during the 16 or 17 years that I have been a member of the House, one would have thought that the acquisition and division of land would not be up for debate in the year 1940. That is particularly so when one recalls the statements made about the acquisition and division of land during the last seven or eight years by members on the Government Benches. But, judging from the debate this evening, we seem to be almost as far as ever from being finished with that task. I think that is a shame when one bears in mind what the Land Commission is costing the country from year to year. The division of land does not seem to have progressed very far in some parts of the country. That certainly is the case in my constituency in East Galway where Deputy Beegan comes from. We are as far from seeing the end of the division of land there as we were ten years ago. We have some very good farmers in that part of the country, and why the land there is not acquired and distributed I cannot understand.

I agree with Deputy Norton in what he said about the houses built on the new estates. My opinion is that sufficient supervision is not exercised in the erection of those houses. I would not care to go as far as Deputy Norton did, but I will say that one sees some very poor houses built by the Land Commission. Some of them, although only erected 12 months, are in a very bad condition. That is not right. Proper supervision should be exercised, and if a specification is prepared then the conditions in it should be carried out. If supervisors are employed for this purpose, care should be taken to see that they know their job. It is possible that a man may be a good land inspector and not a good housing inspector. Even if it were necessary to have two sections set up so that this work would be properly done, I think it would be advisable to do that. My suggestion is that good housing inspectors should be employed to see that the building is done in the right way. We find also that where land was divided 14 or 15 years ago and houses built on it the houses look as bleak to-day as on the day they were erected. I do not know whether that is the fault of the Land Commission or of the tenants, but at any rate no attempt is being made to put down shelter belts to protect the houses. It is quite possible that the fault may be the tenants. The Land Commission were responsible for the erection of the houses, and I think they should have taken care to see that a small corner of the land was cut off and shelter belts put down. Many of those houses have a very dirty appearance, all for the want of a bit of shelter. My own feeling is that if the Land Commission showed a good example in that respect the tenants would follow it.

We find that at the present day the Land Commission are selling houses with small bits of property attached to them. I know of two cases in my own constituency. In one case the house is being tumbled down by the man who bought it, and the material sold. I do not think the Land Commission should allow that because it is a wrong policy to pursue. One case occurred within two miles of where I live. There the Land Commission advanced £600 towards the sale of this property. The house on it was of cut stone. It was a fine extensive building, with the best of out-offices, and every other convenience needed. The place was bought for £400, so that all the purchaser has to pay is £14 in interest on the £600 to the Land Commission. There are 65 acres of land going with the house. If the Land Commission had made it known that the house could be dismantled they could easily have got £1,000 for the whole property. What they did was not right. The benefit should have been given to the adjoining tenants. Two good holdings could have been made out of the 65 acres. I hope the Minister will take a note of that case. What I think the Land Commission should have done was to dismantle the house themselves, sell the material and give the benefit of that to the people living in the area.

In view of the policy of the Government to increase the area under tillage, some attention should be given to the the question of conacre. The position with regard to this is very acute in the West of Ireland. There you have people paying as much as £6 an English acre for conacre, and they have to travel four and five miles to get it. The average price is about £4 an acre. I would appeal to the Minister that in cases where the Land Commission have acquired lands and are not yet in a position to divide it, they should give it out at a reasonable rent in conacre. It would be the means of increasing the area under tillage.

The estimate for the improvement of estates shows a decrease of £150,000. I think that needs some explanation. This work was, in many ways, of great benefit to the country. It meant that a good deal of drainage was done, that roads were made into turbary and so on. Work of that kind was a great help to the people of the district. We certainly should have some explanation from the Minister as to why useful work of that kind is being held up. I move to report progress.

Progress reported; the Committee to sit again as soon as item No. 4 on the Order Paper has concluded.