It may be, but it is bad. I think we have reached the point when we ought to consider the question of restoring fixity of tenure and free sale on some basis. Now this is an important fact that a lot of people lose sight of, that we cannot do that by legislation. The only way you can do it now is by resort to a constitutional amendment, because if we got into power and passed an Act restoring fixity of tenure and free sale as part of our programme, the Fianna Fáil Party would announce their intention of repealing that Act, and if the Fianna Fáil Party did it we would announce our intention of repealing the Act. Fixity of tenure must be restored, but legislation is not the way to do it. I believe there must be some resort to fundamental law which it would not be open to any political Party to repeal. We should have definitely re-established in this country fixity of tenure and free sale.
That, in my opinion, is the first and most urgent work that lies before the Land Commission. Administratively, the Land Commission can do much to restore confidence by announcing that, in general, they would not acquire the land of any farmer who was working his land. At present you have got a situation like this: a man may have 20 acres of land around his house and 60 acres down the road. The Land Commission will come in and take the 60 acres. Another man has 70 acres of land. He may be a man who has no sons, but has a family of daughters. He wants to sell the farm so as to dower his daughters and retire. The minute that he puts up the farm for sale, and instructs an auctioneer to sell it, there is a Land Commission inspector down the following morning, or else there is a meeting of the local Fianna Fáil club calling for the division of this farm, whereupon nobody will bid for it. The farm becomes unsaleable, and thus you destroy his freedom of sale. The Minister knows all that as well as I do. I do not want to labour that further because I think that the Minister, by this time, is as wide awake to the evils which are arising in that sphere as I am.
Reference has been made earlier to political discrimination. I suppose no Department is sacrosanct, and I would not expect, quite frankly, any Department over which the Minister presides to appear with wings and a halo. He is a good, practical, rough and tumble politician. He believes in rough dealing. I do not believe the Land Commission is scandalous. I have not the slightest doubt but that, in certain cases, the Minister wangles the allotment of estates. I have not the slightest doubt about that, but considering his outlook I do not think it is scandalous. I do not suppose that more than 20 or 30 per cent, of the land is wangled. I believe that the balance —the 70 or 75 per cent.—is equitably and honestly distributed, and in all the circumstances. I do not think that ought to be the subject of unduly strenuous complaint. We ought to thank God that it is not worse because, personally, I believed it would be. There is no doubt whatever but that the activities of Deputies like Deputy Smith of Cavan, and Deputy O'Rourke of Roscommon, do great damage. Deputy McGovern described Deputy Smith arriving down in Cavan and holding a public meeting and skilfully creating the impression on the minds of the local people that he was coming down to allot land. Now, whether he had authority to do that or not the people believed that he had, and the people believed that the Minister and himself had a pow-wow up here in town and that Gerry Boland, as they know the Minister, told Paddy Smith to go down and square the estate. There is not the slightest doubt but that Paddy Smith wanted them to believe that his friend, Gerry, was going to do the necessary. Now it may have been that the Minister gave Deputy Smith a flea in his ear, but if he did, Deputy Smith did not tell the people in Cavan about it. He told them that Gerry was a good fellow, and that whatever he said went with Gerry.
Now, I think that is bad, because it creates a bad feeling in the country and, generally, it spreads the impression that corruption is far more rife in the Land Commission than, in fact, it is. The Minister is too prudent an old war horse to get up here and protest that since he became Minister he has assumed wings and a halo. He has not and never will. On the whole, I do not think there is anything shocking afoot. In the same way you had Deputy O'Rourke getting up at a public meeting in Roscommon and saying that he was in a position to certify that every migrant from the West was a member of a Fianna Fáil Club. That was reported in the columns of the Roscommon Herald, and the general implication was “We have a reliable old warrior in the Land Commission and he will see to it that they are.” Of course, the Minister would never dream of saying such a thing. But when that kind of thing has to be said in the Minister's constituency Deputy O'Rourke is sent down to say it. I venture to say that the Minister is too prudent an old war horse to say such a thing in public, but I doubt if he would deny it if it were reported to him behind closed doors in Roscommon, Castlerea or Boyle. Now that is thoroughly bad and it creates misgivings and doubts in the minds of the public, things that are wholly unsatisfactory from every point of view.
I wonder is there any regard had by the inspectors who inquire into the suitability of applicants for land as to their capital equipment. There is no use putting men on the land who have nothing. Such men, if they do not set their land in conacre, cannot possibly raise the money to pay the annuities. I know numbers of cases and the Minister knows them, too, where men were put on land who had not a sixpence. I know of shoemakers and tailors who were given a division of land, men who possessed nothing but the tools of their trade. These men had no more equipment for working a farm of land than I have for draining the Sahara Desert. Is that prudent or sensible?
On the last occasion when this Vote was being discussed I mentioned that when the inspectors go down, they are not always tactful in inquiring into local conditions. They are not always as discreet as they might be. Do they try to avoid creating the impression in the areas they inspect, that they interview nobody but supporters of the Government? I do not think they try to avoid creating that impression. They ought to be warned that in common prudence in addition to getting the information they want, they should avoid giving scandal in the area in which they work. They ought to avoid giving the scandal that they have associated with acrimonious and notorious politicians exclusively for getting the information they want. Otherwise they are only leaving the impression on the minds of the public that they are taking their orders from the local Fianna Fáil boss. A prudent man ought to be able to avoid that. The Minister and his Department ought to tell the inspectors that that is something that should be watched. Otherwise talk will be started and misrepresentation will result.
We have spent over £100,000 cash in bringing migrants from the West of Ireland. That out of pocket expenditure does not include the cost of the land at all which falls to be redeemed as to one-half by the annuitants. I want to ask the Minister this—does he agree that this endless sub-division of land into minimum economic holdings is reducing the productive capacity of the land as a whole? Does he agree that the multiplication of small farms means that the whole output of the agricultural produce of this country is declining? Does he agree that the working of small farms is not economic compared with the working of larger holdings? Suppose he does and he comes to us admitting the economic argument against sub-division, yet the social arguments are so weighty as to out-weigh the economic arguments against it. I am inclined to agree with that view.
But could we not make an experiment with a middle course? Bringing up migrants from the West to the best land in Ireland could we not say:—We are anxious to equip each of those families with 20 acres of land. Let us get 12 families who will join with us in the experiment and instead of giving to each of the 12 families 20 acres of land, let us give the whole 12 families taken together a farm of 240 acres. Adjoining the farm we will build a village of 12 dwelling-houses with 12 gardens, and they can have the usual amenities of village life— water works, sewerage works and a village hall. Let them appoint a manager and pool their resources to purchase stock, seeds and manures and combine their labour to till the soils, and to get a profit. At the end of the year let an account be cast up and let the profit be distributed amongst the 12 holders of the land. They will have all the amenities of homes in their own houses and gardens in the village. They will have a sense of proprietorship, of ownership and of independence in their own houses and gardens in the village just as most of us have. They will have an opportunity of earning the maximum amount that the land is capable of producing by operating it on economic lines with their combined capital in a large community. Between them they will be able to retain the services of a farm manager who would be a highly skilled man. They can co-ordinate their joint efforts so as to enable them to extract from their exertions the maximum return.
That is an experiment that is worth making. It is worth making for two reasons:—(1) that we would get a better return for the money laid out on the migrants and (2) we might get for them too a much better standard of living and the easing of their problems when they are transferred from their peculiar land in the Gaeltacht to the rich and fertile lands of Meath, Westmeath and Kildare. Many of those people come up from the bogs of the West, where I live myself. In the areas from which they come most of the land is reclaimed bog. Such people will find that the type of agriculture suitable to the boglands of the West is not at all suitable to the rich lands of Meath, Westmeath, or Kildare. As a result, these migrants are confronted with problems quite different from those with which they have been dealing in the West. If they could employ a manager who would guide them over their initial stages—who would help them in their efforts to extract from the heavy soil of the midlands the most that could be extracted out of it, that would be an experiment worth trying.
If that experiment succeeded with the migrants in Meath or Westmeath, then it might be considered putting it into effect in parts of the congested districts areas. Substantial tracts therein of ten or 20 farms could be taken, combined and turned into economic units to be worked by a joint effort for the several families that originally lived in the several holdings. In this way they could combine so as to help them to build houses in a village with suitable garden spaces around them and suitable village amenities. In that way the Department could give substantial help towards the solution of the problem in the congested areas even without moving the people off them. I am not at this stage urging that this is a panacea for all ills. I am merely saying it is worth investigating because I believe we all want to get away from the policy of endless sub-division. The only way to get away from it is to make a few experiments along different lines of development so as to see whether they would meet the difficulties with which we are at present confronted. I have mentioned that there are grave social considerations to which full and weighty consideration should be given and, bearing that in mind, I offer the suggestion to the Minister for his consideration and, if possible, for experiment. I believe it would be much more economical from the point of view of the Treasury, and I believe it would be much more satisfactory to the migrants themselves and, ultimately, to a considerable number of small farmers.
I want to emphasise again the necessity for creating in the minds of our people the assurance that ulterior motives are not allowed to operate in the allotment of land. The Minister has heard plenty about that here during the last two days. He knows in his heart that his colleagues are very largely responsible for it, and he is aware, although he will not admit this, that he is not altogether free from blame himself. Lastly, there is the matter of fixity of tenure and free sale. Would the Minister tell us what his view is on that question? Does he believe in fixity of tenure and free sale and, if he does, how does he suggest restoring them to where they were prior to 1933?
