Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 7 Jun 1939

Vol. 76 No. 6

Land Bill, 1938—Second Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."— (Minister for Lands).

The Land Commission had, I understand, a number of schemes in course of preparation for the distribution of land when the Potterton and Maher cases were tried, and when the adverse decisions were given against them those schemes were held up. I should be glad if the Minister would indicate whether the schemes will be taken up by the Land Commission at the stage where they were left off, or whether the preliminary examinations will have to take place all over again, whether the usual notices will have to be served upon the land owners, and the usual length of time given for objections and appeals. This, of course, will make a great deal of difference in districts where no land division has been carried out up to the present. I am aware that the schemes were in an advanced stage; in fact they were so far advanced that the applicants had had their claims considered and the decisions taken as to whether they were to get land or not. It only needed the final signature or decision of the Land Commission to have those holdings distributed.

Section 30 of the Bill authorises the Land Commission to give housing assistance to persons where tithe rent charges are payable, but only in cases, I take it, where an addition has been given to such holdings. It is quite obvious that it is the correct thing to have housing assistance given in such cases. I am sure the powers given to the Land Commission will be welcomed by those people, and that it will be found more economical to erect houses at the old homesteads. There are solid foundations in the haggards and yards, and they are usually well sheltered. I do not find that in any of the Land Acts the Land Commission has power to make advances for housing or other improvements in the case of freeholds where tithe rent charges are being paid. I should be glad if the Minister would have this matter examined with a view to seeing whether it is possible to include in this section of the Bill an authorisation to the Land Commission to grant housing assistance to such people in freeholds where tithe rent charges are being paid.

In conclusion, I am satisfied that this Bill will ensure the smooth running of the Land Commission machinery. During the past few years we have had very many obstacles placed in the path of the Land Commission—perhaps I should say that many obstacles crept into the path of the Land Commission in their efforts to expedite the acquisition of land for distribution amongst the people. I hail this Bill as a measure that goes whole-heartedly to remove all those obstacles and impediments which lie in the way of the speedy land division.

This is an unusual Bill in many respects. In nearly all cases in which a measure is introduced into this House, there is a principle involved. There is no principle involved in this measure at all, unless I am very much mistaken. It is, more or less, a corrective of a series of other clauses, clarification clauses, I would not say new principles, but new systems, changing systems, and so on. It lacks one particular thing which the Minister has been pressed more than once in this House to consider, and in reference to which the Minister for Finance, speaking in the Seanad on the 22nd March last, said:

"Therefore, as Minister for Finance, who is concerned with the question of—or, at any rate, who is very often made responsible for—the provision or non-provision, not merely of credit for agriculturists, but of credit for every other section of the community, prima facie, I am in favour of security of tenure because it does mean, if effective, that credit will be made available at more favourable terms.”

In the course of an investigation of banking, credit, currency and other matters of that sort, the land purchase code came under observation by the Banking Commission. They were perhaps more informative in their report than ever the Minister has been in this House, because they inquired into the policy—if such a term can be applied to the functions—of the Land Commission. For more than one decade, possibly for two or three, the question of dealing with untenanted land for the purpose of relieving congestion was the main function of the Land Commission. In the course of the Banking Commission Report they present a figure showing the number of persons who are seeking land. They arrived at a total of approximately 500,000, made up of 250,000 persons who are at present in uneconomic holdings, and 250,000 which included labourers or persons employed on lands which are likely to be taken over and persons who have claims as being evicted tenants, landless men and so on. They pursued their inquiries in connection with what has been done by the Land Commission. In a paragraph in their report towards the end of their reference to this whole question, they show a variation in the manner in which land has been distributed. While it was the practice, if not the principle, to deal more with uneconomic holders up to a few years ago, it now appears that the percentage is going rather towards landless men than uneconomic holders. In the course of their examination of this problem they took up not only this question, but the whole question of the economy of agriculture. They considered and went to some pains to examine and get opinions upon the general question of agricultural economy in the country.

Some years ago here—I think it was on the occasion of the introduction of the 1933 Act—the late Minister for Agriculture, Deputy Hogan, dealt with that at some length. He pointed out that while on its face a very good case could be made for having a great number of small holdings, so far as agricultural economy itself is concerned it would be a very serious mistake to let your operations in that connection result in disturbing or breaking up all the large farms. He gave as his reason for that that the owners of these farms were the persons largely interested in the better quality of stock of all kinds, and said that from his own experience as Minister he was aware of that as were most people who had made a study of it. I have some figures here in connection with that. In 1935 the percentage of enlargements was 53.1 and new holdings 46.9. In 1936, enlargements had gone down by 10 per cent. to 43.5 and new holdings had gone up to 56.5. In 1937, enlargements had gone down to 35.2 and new holdings had gone up to 64.8. The problem, as I understand it, which faced the late Mr. Hogan in 1922-23 was that question of uneconomic holdings. They were already there. In so far as the operations of the Land Commission are concerned their main purpose was to deal with that problem. If it is not dealt with, and if the figures bear any relation to the true facts of the case which I have given, namely, 250,000 cases of that kind—I do not believe, however, that that figure is correct; it is an exaggerated figure, but it was given by the Banking Commission——

Mr. Boland

That would include small accommodation plots.

It probably would. I would say that the figure would be a little over 100,000, if so many. The commission which sat under the chairmanship of Lord Dudley in the early years of this century got a figure at that time of approximately 80,000. Having regard to the fact that some of these 80,000 must have been dealt with, it is unlikely that there would be more than 100,000 cases which would fall to be dealt with, and of that number it is more than likely that not much more than half could be efficiently and economically dealt with by reason of geographical and other conditions. However, that is the problem. In so far as the operations of the last few years are concerned it appears that the disposition has been to create new holdings rather than to deal with that problem, which the whole scheme of the distribution of land was inaugurated to deal with. We have that on the one hand, and then we have the uncertainty with regard to the occupation of land by the present holders who have purchased under the Land Purchase Acts. That question has not been dealt with.

This Bill certainly suffers from one serious infirmity. The Minister, I think, has scarcely ever put before the House lines of policy for the Land Commission. We have simply devised legislation to the best of our ability, and it is a very difficult proceeding, one which would require a person almost to be a lawyer and an agriculturist as well. Then we hand over whatever we have done to the Land Commission and tell them to work it. When they say after awhile that this section is unworkable or that that section requires to be amended, the Minister comes along and says, "I want these sections amended because the Land Commission requires it." We have no policy so far, except the policy I have indicated by the figures I have given to the House.

There are two paragraphs in the Banking Commission report dealing with security of tenure—No. 509 and No. 510. It is unnecessary to read them. They go, at any rate, in this direction: they say that unless there is security of tenure banks will not be disposed to give credit to agriculturists. But there is a worse feature even than that. Agriculturists themselves will not be disposed to sink their capital in the holdings unless there is security or, at any rate, some degree of stability about the holdings when they have done it. More than half of those at present engaged in agriculture have sufficient capital. The other half, unfortunately, have not. In so far as any action that we take here makes the situation more difficult for these 125,000 occupiers of land, then anything we do to make it more difficult for them in these difficult times is not good business.

It may be that one can point occasionally with a certain amount of satisfaction to the numbers who have got new holdings. That question raises quite a number of queries. The number of allottees from 1932 to 1937 was something like 40,000. We take it that it is the Lay Commissioners who selected these people and put them on the land. Giving the commissioners credit for having all the virtues and none of the vices, is that not rather a tall order for them, notwithstanding any advice they may get from every source possible? They are men who are in their offices from year's end to year's end and they take the advice of this inspector and that inspector. Even if they get suitable and hardworking men for these holdings, these men may be hampered by the fact that they have not got capital. The information at the disposal of the commission was that these men had from £200 to £500. Assuming they had not all the information, this whole scheme, no matter who speaks in favour of it, is an expensive one.

The Banking Commission states that there has been added to the deadweight debt of this country, by reason of the operation of the distribution of land, a sum of approximately £5,000,000 during the last few years. In addition to that, we have year after year, as the commission reports, an increasing sum being expended on estates and on improvements. From 1923-1924 up to 1926 £4,000,000 was spent in that way. It should be the responsibility in conscience of Ministers and Deputies to see whether or not the State is getting value for the money, to see whether every possible precaution has been taken to ensure that it not only gets value but that those who have got land are persons who required help. Let us take as an example two individuals, one who has not sixpence, but is a hardworking man, who is going to be thrown out of employment by reason of the fact that an estate is broken up. He applies and gets a holding. Assume that another man has £250, and that he may have £750 as well, making £1,000 in all, the House has not got any information as to whether a person in that position would be regarded as a satisfactory allottee. Supposing that man had £1,000 capital, are we in conscience right in supporting the expenditure of State money on behalf of a person in that position? I have doubts about it. I think that a person worth £1,000 should be able to buy a farm. If, by reason of the precautions taken in connection with the Land Acts, we are supplying land and holdings to persons in that position, is it not like taking a doctor's son out of Fitzwilliam Square and letting him in as tenant of a flat at 6/6 a week, the State paying £28, and the corporation, perhaps, another £30 in order to provide it? So far as the House is concerned it has got no information about the matter. The only answer given is that the Land Commission is charged with responsibility.

The Minister also tells us that there is no political interference, and that, as far as the law is concerned it does not allow any interference in this business. Is this Bill as urgent as the Minister would lead us to believe? According to the report of the Banking Commission there were some 600,000 acres available for distribution in 1936, or whenever the report was written. The average distribution is somewhat less than 100,000 acres. The largest distribution that ever took place was in 1935, when 97,000 acres were distributed. On that basis there is sufficient land acquired for distribution for six years.

Mr. Boland

It is not in hand. If it were not for the impediments it might or might not have been got. That is the total amount of land.

It may be that my recollection of what I read in the report is wrong, but I thought it said that 600,000 acres were available.

Mr. Boland

Available.

Mr. Boland

Not in hand. That is land which might be expected but only a fraction of it is in the hands of the Land Commission. There are about 60,000 acres, I understand, in hand.

That means that land for a year's operations is available. Assuming that we take the figures the Minister gave, is there anything to prevent the Land Commission for the next six months getting the six Land Commissioners together to sign these documents? In difficult circumstances we do some very difficult things if that is the only obstacle. I say that for six months the Minister would be well advised to tell the six Commissioners that they will have to do this, until he sees what has been done. Surely the Minister will agree to that if persons are getting land at present who could afford to buy it.

Mr. Boland

I will not admit that.

I hope not, but it strikes me as likely in some cases. Although this Bill has 58 sections, it does not deal with the question of security of tenure. It brings us back to the Act of 1933, which entitles a person to be left in possession of a holding worth £2,000. He may be given an alternate holding. If he works it well they must leave him there or give him a holding of equivalent value elsewhere. I think that is the law. Would the Minister go into that question with some of those who have larger holdings? It is worth it, because a small holding to a man accustomed to doing business in a big way is of no use. If there be anything in what the former Minister for Agriculture said in connection with these big farms, and the better quality of stock on them, it is a nice consideration as to whether, with their disappearance, the quality of our live stock which has earned its own reputation, not only here, but in all parts of the world, is going to suffer by reason of that. Notwithstanding the considerable distribution of land which has taken place since 1923-24, there were fewer persons employed on the land last year and the year before than six or seven years ago.

There is another aspect to which the Banking Commission Report referred and it is this, that assuming you have 250,000 applicants, with all the steps that are going to be taken, at best you can provide only 10 per cent. or 20 per cent. with land. It is also stated in the report, and it stands to reason, that the provision of holdings for that 10 or 20 per cent., through the taxation of the other 80 per cent. or 90 per cent. who want land, and will not get it— because it is not there—will make their position, by reason of the costly proceedings, be worse than before. In the normal course when you see so many applications for land how many will get any? The last case of those who are looking for it will be worse, while the idea of making it possible for those who have land to employ more people, and to provide regular occupation for them, will not be realised. It is a most desirable thing to see new holdings, but the question arises can we afford them? I will not give an expression of opinion on that, but I will take the opinion of those who were selected by the Government to examine this question. The view of the majority is that we cannot afford it as it is too expensive, and not only that, but that by reason of the operation of the Land Acts as they stand it is made more difficult for the very much larger number of people engaged in agriculture to carry on the industry.

This Bill is objectionable to persons who take a considered view that there should be maximum security for those in occupation of land. They do not say to be in occupation of land, irrespective of the use to which they put it. They do say that where persons work it to the best of their ability and get value out of it, they should have that security. It is not impossible to harmonise the acquisitiveness of the Land Commission with the desire, the necessity, for dealing with the other cases.

I think the Minister ought to withdraw the Bill and see whether it would not be possible to get agreement on that point. It is desirable that there ought to be the maximum support and co-operation for a measure of this kind. There are parts of the Bill with which I disagree; there are parts of it with which I agree. Within the last two years I brought under the Minister's notice one special case. I do not represent a rural constituency and those cases of complaint, if there are any, may not always come to the surface. I think the Minister would not stand over injustice to persons, whether they are in occupation of land or not. It is our duty, so far as membership of this House is concerned, to hold the balance evenly between the citizens and distribute justice in accordance with equitable principles.

This measure is giving almost unlimited power to the Land Commission. Once they get it, we cannot sit in judgment upon them as to how it should be made operative. They will say, "We are merely carrying out the law." It is our duty to see that no power, other than that which is absolutely necessary, should be given. In my opinion, there is too much power given in this Bill, and I could not support it as it stands.

I agree with the point of view which has been expressed in connection with this Bill, that it is largely a machinery Bill, and introduces no new principle so far as our land legislation is concerned. But that in itself does not make the Bill objectionable, if the purpose of it is to remove obstacles to the acquisition of land which have been made possible by the mass of legal jargon which has surrounded our land legislation. I think we have to take our stand on the basic principle is land division desirable and necessary, or is it not? Do we want to continue a situation where we have large ranches in the midst of poverty-stricken cottiers who are unable to get grass for a cow, or do we want to use our large ranches for the purpose of settling thereon as many people, in relatively comfortable circumstances, as the land, and its reasonable proximity to the markets which require our produce, make possible?

I think that, faced with a choice of that kind, anybody who desires to maintain the stability of our agricultural position, and who desires to ensure as high a measure of prosperity for our agricultural workers as we can give them, will have no hesitation in deciding that the only sane and sensible policy in circumstances of that kind is to plank for the policy of the acquisition and division of large holdings. We know that in this country we have a very serious emigration problem. In the ten years from 1926 to 1936 we exported 165,000 of our people, although during that period the increase of births over deaths was represented by the figure of 162,000. In those ten years, not only did we export what is regarded as the normal increase of population in every country in the world, but we threw a few thousands in addition into the emigrant ship.

And it is noteworthy that we divided more land than ever before during that period.

And while the Party with which you now sit was in office, they closed down many industries during that period.

I do not think that is true.

For example?

If Deputy Belton went through the country when he was not in that Party, and if he saw the derelict mills and factories, he would have no hesitation in saying that they gave colour to the views he expressed at that time.

As an example, take the Carbury turf. That goes home to you, does it not?

What is the use of talking? Do we not know quite well, and has not the complaint been voiced by many Deputies, that during the period in which Deputy Dillon now apparently takes so much pride, and in which others under new circumstances and with new affiliations take pride, there was absolute industrial stagnation? But that is aside from the purpose of this discussion and I do not imagine the Chair will allow me to ramble from the subject-matter.

A Speaker is very handy sometimes.

I appreciate how handy he is sometimes when I hear Deputy Belton speaking. At any rate, we are presented here with the problem of whether we can afford to continue to export the most virile of our manhood and womanhood, or try to break up the ranches in the rural areas and settle on them as many families as possible. Every sensible person concerned with the well-being of the nation will insist that the policy of the Government, no matter what its political complexion may be—and I think a matter of this kind transcends all Party affiliations— should be to continue the policy of breaking up the ranch lands and settling on them as many people as possible. We are a small nation, with approximately 3,000,000 people. We are exporting more people than the increase of births over deaths indicates, according to official records, and we are the one white nation in the world which is losing its population.

In a situation of that kind, is there anybody, other than a person who is interested in the preservation of vested interests, prepared to say that we should allow a drift of that type to continue and not avail of opportunities presented to us to try to induce our people to remain on the land in their own country? One of the ways in which we can correct the tendency of our people to emigrate is by offering them inducements to remain on the land. What inducement is there offered to two or three young men, from 20 to 25 years of age, sons of a farmer who has 20 acres, to continue to remain in rural Ireland when they know that the only prospect before them is, perhaps, employment on a rotational relief scheme for three or four days a week, or the kind of casual employment to be got in agriculture for a few weeks or months?

There is no inducement to remain there, and there is less inducement because of the fact that we are situated close to an industrial nation which is a substantial outlet for the brawn which Irish people can afford to sell in the markets of unskilled labour throughout that country. One of the ways in which we can correct that tendency to emigrate, and correct the appalling depopulation of our rural areas, is by breaking up the untenanted ranch lands, lands often owned by absentee landlords, and settle thereon as many families as it is possible to sustain in our agricultural economy.

How much of that land is available?

Of course, I do not expect Deputy Gorey to agree with this point of view.

I am only asking how much of that land is available.

I say that, at any rate, we have by no means reached the limits of our ability to divide land, and I suggest that if Deputy Gorey, in the course of some of his hunting expeditions in County Kildare, would survey the lands that are available there for distribution, if he would take notice of the way these lands are being used, or rather not being used, he himself would say, as a practical farmer, that it would be very much better if these lands were divided than to leave them as they are at the moment.

I am only asking the question in order to get some information.

I know, of course, that there is only a certain amount of land in the country and that, once you reach a certain point, there would be no more land left to divide unless you could rail in the sea, but I also know that we have by no means reached the end of our resources in the matter of land acquisition.

At what point would the Deputy stop?

I think the Deputy ought to make his own speech.

Well, I will.

The trouble is that the Deputy speaks about so many things, of which he professes to know everything, that in the end it generally transpires that he knows nothing. However, as I was about to say, I think that one of the ways in which we can correct the tendency to emigrate is by keeping the people on the land and making occupation on the land as attractive as possible for them. I do not say that the giving of a holding to every person is going to make life in rural Ireland attractive when, every day in the week, through the medium of the moving picture, newspapers, and various other agencies, life in other countries, and particularly in English-speaking countries, is held out to be much more attractive and alluring. Nevertheless, I say that if you can manage to anchor as large a number of people as possible on the land here, you do ensure that the tendency to emigrate will not be as great as in the case when, as it is at present, they can pack up their worldly goods in a two-and-sixpenny fibre case and take the next train to some industrial city in England in order to scour that industrial city in the hope that they can manage to get employment as unskilled labourers at any rates that their brawn can command.

We have, of course, in the country —and I see it particularly in my own constituency—very substantial holdings of untenanted land, of 300, 400 and 500 acres, used in a rather perfunctory manner for ranching purposes, and used very indifferently even for ranching purposes, with the owner in many cases probably not living in the country, and probably not having lived in the country for 20 years or so; and yet, side by side with that, you have a whole lot of penniless, poverty-stricken cottiers wondering where they will get the next week's work or when they will be able to induce the board of health to give them a few shillings a week to sustain them and their families until such time as work might arrive. That is not good agricultural economy, and I think that good agricultural economy would demand that, in circumstances of that kind, we ought to take the land from such ranchers who are wastefully using their 200 or 300 acres of land, and divide that land up amongst as many of these impoverished cottiers as possible.

Does the Deputy seriously say that there are several 500 acre farms in County Kildare, the owners of which have been living abroad for the last 20 years?

Yes, there are several such cases.

Well, I should like the Minister to give us some particulars in regard to that when he is replying.

I have directed the attention of the Land Commission to dozens of these cases, and I must confess to Deputy Dillon that I am thoroughly disappointed with the slothfulness of the Land Commission in proceeding with the acquisition and division of lands of that kind.

I never heard of it.

No, because the Deputy does not represent that constituency, but I can tell him that, if he goes down there, he will have no hesitation in realising that those lands are there. If he does not believe me, he can put down a Parliamentary question with a view to getting the information from the Minister.

Well, perhaps the Minister will give us the information when he is winding up.

Maybe so, but who can possibly defend a position where you have a large holding of that kind, improvidently and uneconomically used, and at the same time, situated around it, a substantial number of impoverished cottiers who are unable to get work, who are unable to get grass for a cow, and who are unable to get anything like regular employment? On a holding of 300 acres of land I hold that it is possible to settle, relatively—and I use the word "relatively" advisedly —approximately ten families. Is it not better that these ten families should be settled on such a 300-acre ranch rather than be compelled to exist in circumstances such as I have described? I cannot imagine how any Deputy here, who is concerned with solving the problem, and who looks at the problem objectively as distinct from his vested interests, can possibly defend a policy of leaving untouched the uneconomically used grass lands in this country while you have competent landless agricultural workers craving for an opportunity to operate their abilities on the grass lands that are at present held by ranchers of that type.

I do not mean to suggest, of course, that the only way in which you can divide land is by taking, for instance, a 300-acre farm and settling thereon about ten families. There is another way. Perhaps this is an issue upon which Deputy Dillon may agree with me. I do not think that it is always desirable to break up a large holding and parcel it out among a number of persons who, although they are agricultural workers and impoverished, may not be able to use the land, so divided, to the utmost advantage. I should like to see some experiments carried out by the State, under State supervision and under the direction of the people competent to give directions in the matter, by way of testing out the co-operative development of land in this country. It might be very much better for us in certain cases, and, when we think we have the right material, the most suitable land and other favourable factors present, it might be better, instead of dividing up a 300-acre holding and settling thereon, let us say, ten families, as individual holders, to settle them thereon as a co-operative undertaking and encourage those families to work the land co-operatively under Governmental direction. Such an experiment would enable us to ascertain whether or not it is better to work the holdings co-operatively in those circumstances than to hand them over to individual owners.

We have all heard it said that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

I can tell Deputy Dillon that, long before he ever sat on those benches over there, that was advocated by Labour Deputies.

Even before Stalin's time?

Yes, before Stalin's time, and even before Deputy Belton had changed around to the number of Parties he has been in.

These are cheap gibes.

Yours is just as cheap.

At any rate, I think there is considerable merit in operating a substantially-sized holding on a co-operative basis. It has been done in other countries. Deputy Belton, probably, will say: "Yes, in Russia." I understand that it has been done in Russia, but it has also taken place in other countries than Russia, such as the Scandinavian countries, and in the Scandinavian countries the experiments carried out have been marked by a very high degree of success. Now, our development in arts, crafts and sciences has not yet reached such a pinnacle as that we can afford to disregard the experiments of other countries in such matters, no matter what the political ideologies of these new countries may be.

Would the Deputy agree that these holders should own their own holdings?

I believe that one of the best ways of inculcating a spirit of independence in our people is to give them the ownership of their homesteads, because no matter how adversity may cross their paths, that, at least, will be a rallying place for them. The home has always been a substantial rallying place for the Irish people. There are advantages, I think, in co-operative farming. It enables the farm to be used comprehensively. It is possible, by the use of large areas of land on the basis of co-operative farming, to introduce tractors, reapers and binders, a thing you cannot do on a 20 or 30 acre holding. Besides, the operation, as a corporate unit, of a substantial holding would enable seeds, manures, implements and the various other requisites for agricultural pursuits to be purchased on much more favourable terms than it is possible to purchase them if the ability to purchase is related to income or to the skill of the small individual holder. I would urge, therefore, that the Minister who used to be a radical—possibly, free from the cares and machinery of office he would revert to his former status—should try to impregnate the Land Commission with a little of his earlier radicalism. Believe me, even if the Land Commission could get 99 per cent. of the Minister's radicalism it would reduce its conservatism by 1 per cent. I think it is necessary for some Minister, at some time, to make a stand and say: "Well, this is a field of activity which I would like to see explored and exploited."

I would like to see the present Minister who has commendable industry and enthusiasm for what he thinks is right, requiring the Land Commission to carry out some experiments in co-operative farming in this country so that we could know the results. It may be said that it does not suit our temperament. It may be said that the individualistic tendencies of our people are such that you cannot overcome their prejudices against anything in the nature of co-operative farming or communal enterprise. One has only to go to the country to realise how deeply ingrained is individualism in our people. Nevertheless, I suggest that it is well worth while, whether our people lend themselves temperamentally and vocationally to co-operative farming or not, carrying out an experiment of this kind, thereby giving to the House and to the nation generally the results of such an experiment. After all, we established four or five industrial alcohol factories within the past few years, and there is not one of them working now.

And if I would not be accused of infringing the copyright of the Minister for Finance, one might describe them now as "five gloriously white elephants." It is not likely that they will ever operate in this country unless the value of agricultural produce is so low that the farmer will be prepared to take almost any price for his potatoes.

Is this sabotage?

It is irrelevant.

I am drawing this comparison, though I do not intend to dwell on it in this Bill. I am drawing the comparison that if we can spend hundreds of thousands of pounds on industrial alcohol factories, then I say, let us spend a few hundred pounds in making an experiment more closely associated with the traditions and outlook of our people, namely, co-operative farming instead of entering into the domain of industrial exploitation in which we have no tradition and in which the best paid jobs are given not to our own people, but to people that we have to bring from another country. I do not believe that an experiment, even on a large scale, in the case of co-operative farming in this country, could possibly bring us the ghastly results that have been associated with industrial alcohol production in this country.

I thought that the Deputy had quitted those factories a few minutes ago.

I propose to pass from them now, having quietly laid a wreath on the grave of five of them. In the course of the discussion on this Bill the question of the farmer's security of tenure has been raised. I profess a complete inability to understand the point of view of those who expressed themselves on that. I cannot see any insecurity of tenure in the case of the man who farms his land in a beneficial way from a national point of view. Any persons in the country who own even a substantial sized holding, and there are members of this House who are the owners and occupiers of such holdings, know perfectly well that their security is unquestioned once the holding is used in the national interest and in accordance with some kind of ordered national policy. I think, however, that the case can be made that many farmers in the country are unable to get the credit facilities which they require. That is not because of the fear of insecurity. It is because the banks have been bitten badly on the policy they adopted of shovelling out money in 1917, 1918 and 1919—at a time when they thought that the last War was going to be another Seven Years' War. On that assumption, they proceeded to shovel out money to people for the purchase of farms at artificially high prices. The banks have now reacted from that situation, so that the position to-day is that a burglar is as welcome in a bank as a farmer. That is not due to any legislation which was passed through this House. It is the natural revulsion of the banks against the policy of imprudence which they adopted towards the end of the European war and immediately after. They have reacted from that position now, so that a man can get no money on his holding. Here is where I quarrel with the Government: that, realising what the policy of the banks is on this matter, they ought to establish some kind of credit facilities for farmers who use their land economically. I think it is the Government's duty to do that. That is not done by the machinery of the Agricultural Credit Corporation.

The Minister for Lands does not deal with credit nor with the Agricultural Credit Corporation.

I am afraid that is a very severe ruling if you take the position that you find in any parish in the country. There you have thousands of the best agriculturists in the world all bursting to be able to buy seeds and manures to exploit their land and with nobody to give them seeds and manures. They hold their land from the Land Commission. Surely, the Minister for Lands has some responsibility for lubricating a situation of that kind, and of enabling those people to go and exploit their land, seeing that, unless they do so, they cannot pay the Minister their annuities. In any case I do not pretend to invade that domain too deeply beyond saying to the Minister, and appealing to his latent radical instincts, that he ought to try to induce the Government to do for farmers who use their land prudently and economically what the banks will not do for them, and what that effete machine, known as the Agricultural Credit Corporation, will not do for them, unless their financial circumstances are such that anybody will lend them money. The point of view was noticeable in Deputy Dillon's speech last night that there should be security for almost everybody who holds land, irrespective of how he uses it, or whether it is necessary for his requirements or not. I want to be frank on that matter, and to say that personally I do not believe that a rancher with 400 or 500 acres of land, using it imprudently and improvidently, should be given security on his holding if, in the national interests, it is possible to acquire that holding from him on the basis of fair compensation, and to settle on the holding as many families as can economically be settled there.

Would the Deputy give fixity of tenure to anybody?

To whom?

I would give fixity of tenure to every farmer in the country who required the land for his own personal needs, ascertained by some previously agreed standard, and to any person who held a very substantial holding so long as that land was being used in the national interests and not wastefully for ranching purposes.

There is no substantial difference between us.

I am glad Deputy Dillon is being converted.

I am not being converted at all. Those men to whom the Deputy now refers have no fixity of tenure at present.

Oh, yes.

Mr. Boland

They have.

The Deputy has not had the heartbreaking experience, in a big ranching county, of trying to get the Land Commission to acquire holdings of land that are improvidently and uneconomically used to-day, and of hearing from the Land Commission that they do not propose to acquire that land because—when he knows there is a fear of its being acquired— the man holding about 250 acres sows for one year five or ten acres of his land in barley and oats. Deputy Harris knows that perfectly well.

Would the Deputy say——

The Deputy will say nothing until I finish.

The Deputy is in a corner and he is quite right to avoid the issue.

The Deputy will make his own speech.

I am quite prepared to agree with Deputy Dillon or anybody else—it is quite an accident that I agree with Deputy Dillon on the matter—that security of tenure ought to be given to every person who owns land sufficient for his needs. But somebody must ascertain what his needs are, and I do not want this House or any politician in or associated with this House to decide that. I would give security of tenure even to a man owning a very substantial holding if that holding was being used and exploited in the national interests, doing the nation's work and providing the maximum amount of employment. I think it better to give security, and to recognise security in these cases. But to the man who has 300 or 400 or 500 acres of ranch land, which he is using inadequately, I would not give security, and I do not think any legislation which we pass in this House should ever consolidate a person in a holding of that kind when the national interests demand that the holding should be acquired and given to other people. As a matter of fact, I would go even further. If we have got to put up with a class of that kind, until such time as our slow moving machinery enables us to eliminate them, I would give preferential rating to the man who uses his land for tillage purposes, as distinct from the man who uses it for the purposes of raising stock, bearing in mind that one man takes considerable risks, with the very uncertain climate here, while the other man does not at all expose himself to similar risks.

My God! Did the Deputy ever feed a calf?

The armchair farmer!

Sit up once with a sow pig and you will never say that again.

I should like to make reference to the policy of the Land Commission in respect of the kind of holdings they have given to allottees when it comes to a question of acquiring lands for division. I made reference to this on a previous occasion, and I should like to emphasise my point of view now. It seems to me to be a highly mistaken policy for the Land Commission to give out a small holding of land—18, 20 or 22 acres of land— and imagine that when they have done that they have made the landless man a small farmer. My experience indicates that, when you give 20 acres or thereabouts to a person who is seeking a holdings of land, you have not made him a small farmer, and you have not prevented him from entering into competition with unemployed workers for employment on any relief schemes or county council work that may be available in the area in which he resides. I think it would be a better policy for the Land Commission, having, of course, regard to the area in which they are dividing the land, and particularly having regard to the conditions in eastern counties, to decide that the holdings to be allocated should not be less than 30 acres. It is quite impossible for a man to sustain himself and his wife and family on a holding of 18 or 20 acres, and it is almost impossible to get more than 20 or 22 acres from the Land Commission in eastern counties like Kildare, for instance, unless a substantial proportion of that holding is non-arable land. I think, therefore, that the Land Commission should reconsider their whole policy in respect of the allocation of those holdings. A small holding of that kind does not make a man a small farmer. Every time there is a relief scheme in his area the man who has got a holding of 20 acres or thereabouts from the Land Commission is a keen competitor for work on that scheme.

I think it is the failure of the Land Commission in this direction which causes so much difficulty in regard to the people not using their holdings. A man who may have some casual employment gets a holding of 18 or 20 acres of land from the Land Commission. He knows that holding will not be sufficient to sustain him. He is reluctant to give up such employment as he has, or such casual employment as he may be able to get. What is happening is that that man is letting the land for grazing purposes, and not using it in the manner desired by the Land Commission. I think the policy of the Land Commission should be directed towards trying to make each holder a small farmer, relying on the productivity of the land and his own industry, and to taking him definitely off the labour market so that he will not compete with other persons who are not in the same position as he is.

Generally speaking, I want to say that this Bill has our support. It is largely, of course, a machinery Bill, but we need machinery for almost any task in life to-day. In so far as it means the acceleration of land acquisition and division, I am wholeheartedly in favour of the Bill. If I have any complaint on the matter it is not about the Bill; it is about the slothfulness of the manner in which the machinery works in the Land Commission. I do not think we can afford to regard the question of land acquisition as one which we will pass on in perpetuity to those who come after us. In our circumstances, it is necessary that land division should be speeded up, because, unlike other countries which yield a substantial surplus of population each year, we cannot afford to ignore the constant drift from the land, the constant decline in the number of young people, and the abnormal number, relatively, of older people left in the community. A situation of that kind can only be corrected in the rural areas by the speedy acquisition and distribution of land. A speeding up of that policy would be calculated, I think, to arrest the tendency of our people to emigrate, and encourage them to remain at home. By converting our ranch lands into tillage lands, and by improving our methods of agricultural economy, we can help to strengthen the nation agriculturally, help to strengthen it economically, and to provide for our people at home the employment which at present they are compelled to seek in other lands.

I am one of those who believe that this measure is long overdue. Listening to the speeches from the Opposition Benches yesterday I also thought that that was their belief, because we had Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney saying that the Bill did not lend itself to Second Reading speeches, that it was really a Bill to be dealt with in Committee. It was only to-day when the Leader of the Opposition spoke that I found there was really objection to it. That did not appear from the first part of his speech, because he said there was no new principle in it. But he had not gone very far in his speech when he referred to the dead-weight debt which was being incurred by this country owing to the activities of the Land Commission. I was rather amazed to hear him mention dead-weight debt, when I recalled the time when all the fat beasts finished in this country and which were shipped to England did not realise the amount of the annuities we were sending over there. I think that was a more serious dead-weight debt than any debt caused by the activities of the Land Commission in spending money and putting it into circulation on the improvement of estates and planting the people on the land. He wound up by appealing to the Minister to withdraw the Bill for the reason that it gave unlimited powers to the Land Commission. Have we not had cases held up by judicial decisions for four or five years? There is the case of one estate in my own county which has been going on for eight years and it is not settled yet. Surely it is time for the Land Commission to have it settled one way or the other and, if they have not the powers to do it, the House should give them the powers. There is no use in having them waiting like that if they cannot do the work.

Coming down to details, I heard speeches in the House yesterday, mostly from people who make their living from the land, and I was very interested in listening to them. It seems to be the general complaint that, some time ago, land was worth more in the open market than it is now, and the argument was that fixity of tenure had something to do with that. I remember the time when 5/6ths of the money that was paid for farms sold in the open market, or even business places in the towns, came from relatives living abroad who sent the money home. That money is not coming in here to-day; it is dried up. There is no account taken of that. Then we were also told of the time when land was regarded as good security by the banks, but that it is not now. There was a time when we had inflation here, when banks were looking for the security of the land for the use of their money, and when they actually made men take more money on loan than they asked for. Now we have a period of deflation and, coinciding with that, we have a world depression. Of course, some of the loans advanced by the banks in the inflation period were never repaid, because the people could not be expected to pay £1 for 10/-, as that is what, in effect, it meant.

We are getting 10/- for the £ now.

The Deputy has already made his speech. I welcome the Bill because I believe that it is necessary to do something to expedite the proceedings of the Land Commission. We have inspectors down the country making investigations and recommending the acquisition of certain lands. Then we have a decision given by some court, and another decision given by another court, and the whole thing is held up. That is not good for the country and does not make for stability. We should have some definite plan and go ahead with it. Taking the country as a whole, I believe that to a great extent all these Land Acts were debated during two general elections, and the policy attached to them, and that this House as a whole had responsibility for them, because, remember, we had similar statements made from the Opposition on these occasions. I do not deny that in Committee there may have been a serious difference of opinion even between individuals on both sides of the House.

I suggest to the Minister, however, that it is time, by some means or other, to get rid of these tithe rent charges and that they should be consolidated with the annuities. They are a very vexatious thing in many districts and I know of one case in my own county. I ask the Minister to look into that matter very carefully and see if anything can be done to remedy it. I welcome the Bill, which I believe is long overdue. I had hoped that it would be welcomed on all sides of the House and that there would be only differences about it in Committee. Speaking for my own constituency, I can say that it is long overdue, and I hope the Minister will give effect to its provisions as soon as possible.

I really intervene only to make one or two observations, especially on one particular aspect of this matter. Personally, I may say that, as a result of experience, I should hesitate very much in increasing any power which the Land Commission has for what often practically amounts to confiscation of property. I think the price often offered for farms is both highly ludicrous and highly unjust. It may, in the national interest, be necessary; it may seem to a government necessary to acquire land for sub-division, though that is a matter for which I shall ask for a little further consideration afterwards. But I think there should be a proper effort made on the part of the Government, and of the Land Commission as the instrument of Government policy, to give a reasonable price for that land—to give something more than the ludicrous price for the land which has very often been forced on the owner. The Minister must know that it is a constant source of worry and a cause of panic on some occasions that when people have land to sell and are about to sell it and are coming to an agreement about the price, the Land Commission should indicate a tendency to step in; because it is immediately felt that the price that might have been realised by the ordinary sale of the land is going to collapse. The Minister must have any number of cases of that kind brought to his notice. Whether that makes for the stability of which Deputy Victory spoke and on which he seems to be so keen I should think the House ought to be in a position to judge as a result of experience. Whatever else it makes for it does not make for confidence or for stability. Under such conditions how can we expect farmers to improve their lands or even keep them in good heart? Could we expect improvement in any business?

I need not stress what has been stressed so much in this debate, the importance that a number of people who have done a great deal to build up this country attach to the principle of fixity of tenure. Interference with it may be occasionally necessary, but it should be limited as much as possible. What I want to stress is this: if it is determined that it is necessary to interfere with that principle, then I say that it should be done in accordance with some general national policy framed for the country as a whole; not a policy of the Land Commission, but a policy of the Government. I am very much afraid that in the effort to secure what in itself seems very desirable, namely, the creation of a number of new holdings of moderate size, that the Land Commission in trying to put as many people of that kind on the land as possible, in order to carry out this side of Government policy, have not considered how that must affect the general agricultural economy of the country. I gathered from the report of the Banking Commission that the Land Commission actually disclaimed any regard to general agricultural economy. That is precisely what I am afraid of. In paragraph 558 of the appendix to the majority report it is stated:

"Moreover it is plain from the evidence of Mr. Deegan that it has not been part of the recognised task of the Land Commission to evolve an economic policy which might serve as a basis for directing the exercise of its statutory power."

In other words, the business of the Land Commission apparently, as seen by the Land Commission—and I think anyone who knows it will agree—is to divide the land. What effect that division of land, or the pushing it to the length now proposed, is going to have on the general agricultural welfare of the country is, apparently, not the custom of the Land Commission to consider. Possibly the House will remember that some time ago we had a debate about what was to be one of the greatest industries for bringing salvation to this country. I do not know whether it belonged to the Department of Agriculture or the Department of Defence, but the Minister for Defence was in charge of the turf industry then and what was revealed to the House was that we had two Departments of Government, one the Departments of Industry and Commerce, promoting the turf industry, and the other, the Department of Local Government promoting the building of a number of houses with grates that were suitable for coal. The idea that the two Government Departments should consult beforehand, and bring their activities into harmony, had not dawned on the Departments or the responsible Ministers. I am afraid that we shall have something of the same kind happening here. We have the open confession of the Land Commission that it is not their job. In other words, in connection with land you have the Department of Agriculture promoting a policy or a different one every year, while another Department deals with land which really, with a normal Government, ought to have some connection with agriculture. Apparently it does not care what the policy of the Minister for Agriculture is.

We all know that a heroic and radical effort was made to get out of the cattle trade and many know what it cost. At one time the slogan of one Minister, the Minister for Agriculture, was: "More tillage, less cattle." That has been dropped. At least, it was dropped and taken up, then dropped and again taken up. At the moment I understand it is dropped. Has the Land Commission considered, with the addition of these new powers, whether the use it is going to make of them is likely to help the promotion of what ought to be and is at the moment the policy of the Minister for Agriculture, the promotion of a better cattle trade? Deputy Norton spoke of the national interest. How far national interest should override the claims of ordinary justice is, I am afraid—as is illustrate by some of the transactions of the Land Commission—a big question. Leaving that moral question aside, what are the national interests in this particular case? The Deputy spoke of a new agricultural policy. Where is it? If you had the foundation, or if, at least, an effort was made to build up this radical change in our agricultural policy, so as to fit in with the disappearance of the grass farm—to speak of ranches is absurd—if I had any conviction that efforts were being made to co-ordinate these two things I would take a somewhat different view of the matter. But one of them is, I fear, non-existent; I do not see any such effort to have a new and revolutionary agricultural policy in the south-west put into force. And is that not necessary if you are to be justified in your present policy.

What I feel is that the Land Commission is going along with one policy, careless of what the general effect would be on the economic life of the country as a whole. May I point out that in the Report of the Banking Commission it is stated that there are important considerations of that kind left out of account. It is really to stress that particular matter with the Minister that I intervened. Let us, if you will, consider broad national interests alone, leaving the important question of justice on one side, but do not consider that you are promoting national interests if you are merely attacking the symptoms, whilst, at the same time, you undermine the general main national economy of the country. That is what I am afraid is being done. To relieve congestion is desirable. Increase the wealth of the country with tillage, but do not, as we begged you before, when the question of destroying the cattle trade and killing calves was on, wipe out the sources of wealth you have got before you are sure of having something else to put in their place. It took us some years to convince the Government that it was necessary to adopt that particular point of view. They were convinced in the end and the country ought to rejoice. Let them take the full implications of anything they are doing into account, how that will affect the general national agricultural and economic interests. We are now asked to give new powers to a Department that says it is not its business to consider the implications of its actions, or the repercussions of its actions on general policy and the general economic position. That is really the one thing I wished to stress. There are certain other very important aspects of the question to be considered, but I want to confine myself merely to that one, because while I think it is now the general desire to do what seems to be good in itself, that might result in a great deal more damage unless we are more careful.

I want to say that this Bill is one of the greatest need of the present time. It is well known that possibly for three years there has been scarcely any acquisition of land, and were it not for the fact that the Land Commission had illegally acquired land on an extensive scale there would be no land to divide during those three years, and they would not have been able to place families on the land as apparently is the policy put forward by members of all Parties. Acquisition has been held up. It is time that the Government introduced this measure which, I hope, when passed into law will be given drastic effect to without any great delay. As to the talk about the rights of people and fixity of tenure in my opinion you must either have fixity of tenure in all its implications or you cannot have it at all. You must have reason in the matter. If you are to give fixity of tenure how can you exclude wealthy ranchers who can graze the lands at will or allow half of it to go derelict? How can you deny that to them and give it to neighbours who would probably have smaller-sized ranches, but who use them in the best interests of the nation, both from the housing and tillage point of view? How can you deny fixity of tenancy to a man with an uneconomic holding who may be living in America, and who may set that holding and allow it to become to all intents and purposes derelict land, with a fee-simple interest in a holding? You must have reason in the matter as far as fixity of tenure is concerned.

I do not hold there is anything sacred in this fixity of tenure. The rights of the nation, of the community, should go before the interests or the folly of an individual in whom fixity of tenure is vested, and the national outlook, as Deputy O'Sullivan was shrewd enough to bring in, in order to save the things he did say from being construed in a way he would not like them to be construed for political reasons, is an important consideration. He said the national interests came before fixity of tenure. With that I thoroughly agree. I do not approve of Deputy O'Sullivan saying the other things in order to have it both ways in this matter.

I approved of the statement made by Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney yesterday. I thought his line, his attitude, was one that would be adopted by other members of his Party, but from the statements made by Deputy Cosgrave and Deputy O'Sullivan, it would seem that they are running counter to the opinions expressed by Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney. I think it is unfortunate that they should divide forces in this matter in expressing their opinions. Deputy Cosgrave asked can we afford to have any more land division—can the country afford it? I would ask, as against that, can the country afford not to have more land division. I would say the country cannot.

You have slums in other places than the City of Dublin. You have land slums throughout the country, particularly throughout the West of Ireland. That is a matter that is crying out for a remedy. You have destitution, you have disease and all kinds of social wrongs in those areas because of the land slums that are there. Surely they should be remedied, and how can they be remedied unless you go ahead on a much larger scale with the division of land?

Deputy Cosgrave based his argument in favour of the slowing up of land division on the Report of the Banking Commission. I have not much respect at all for the Report of the Banking Commission, although I must admit I am no authority on the matter. The Banking Commission, to my mind, recognise the existence of money and its right to rule and control our existence, but they deny the right of existence to human beings. That is the way I sum up the Banking Commission's Report and, I think, from my point of view, looking at it from the land slum aspect, the crowded populations we have in parts of the West of Ireland, and the blank areas we have, from the population point of view, in other places where there is rich land, I am summing it up correctly from the community's point of view.

It is a false doctrine to claim that we must slow up land division, leave people living in land slums and force people to migrate to try to earn a living abroad, simply because the Banking Commission think, from their outlook, that it is not an economic proposition. There is no such thing as a flight from the land. A lot of people who live far from the atmosphere of the land, who till land by reading books and who study farming from the book-keeping aspect only, far from the land, have been talking about the flight from the land. There never was such a land hunger in this country as there is now. There never were more people anxious to get possession of land, and till and work it, than there are now. Land value was never higher than it is now, if we except the war years.

Taking all things into consideration, in connection with the sales of farms of land, prices are being realised now greater than were realised heretofore. And you must consider that the money paid now for land is money hard earned here at home, not money earned abroad, as in former years, and sent back by people to their relatives to buy the land. That money is not coming in now to purchase land here. When you consider that, and when you consider the price land is fetching, I hold that the money now being paid for the land is in excess of that formerly paid. I repeat that you must consider that the money paid for it is taken out of the earnings of the people here at home.

I would say, therefore, that the need for this Bill is great. The need for land division is great. I would be inclined to give the Land Commission, provided their operations are directed from the national point of view, through the Government, almost unlimited powers. They have been grudgingly given powers all over the years. The intentions of the 1923 Act were good, but the powers were not there. The intentions of other Acts down to the present day were good—all parties welcomed them—but the powers were not there. They will have to get almost unlimited power in order to settle this land problem, which has gone on for generations and which has been the fad and the plank of almost every political platform. It is time we finished with it and it is time this House agreed that the Land Commission should get the necessary powers to settle this problem finally.

I think in this Bill they are getting the extra powers they need, and if those extra powers interfere with this supposed fixity of tenure that has been spoken about here, I do not regret it one bit. In the past years even the 1923 Act did seriously affect fixity of tenure. Every Act passed during the previous Government's regime did seriously affect fixity of tenure and it is rather late in the day for the Leaders of the Opposite Party who sponsored those Acts to complain now about fixity of tenure being interfered with. If fixity of tenure is being vitally affected by this Bill, I welcome it if, as Deputy O'Sullivan wisely said, the operations of the Land Commission take into consideration the national requirements of this country.

Another thing was mentioned by Deputy O'Sullivan. The Deputy mentioned the statement made by Mr. Deegan before a commission of inquiry and the statement was to the effect that in dividing land it was not the business of the Land Commission to bother about its use afterwards, from the national or any other point of view. I think there was no such point of view expressed by that official of the Land Commission, but if there were such a view expressed, I think it is entirely wrong. I hold it is not the business of the Land Commission alone to divide land. There is a greater responsibility on the Land Commission and if they do not feel that responsibility it should be impressed on them. Dividing land in a haphazard fashion is a foolish policy. I am afraid to some extent it has been done during the terms of office of both Governments. It has been done in particular by the previous Government, but it may be, perhaps, that I was more critical of what was done by the previous Government than I am of the present Government.

I know it was done on an extensive scale in the Midlands. Lands were given to men who did not want land, except to have something to sell or to set. Land was given then to men who have never gone into occupation of it up to the present day, so far as living on it or working it is concerned. It was done to some extent during the term of office of the present Government and that is a thing I want to object to strongly. Land should not be given by any Government to good-for-nothings. Land should not be given by any Government to landless men, while you have in all parts of the country cottiers, uneconomic landholders, living on a few acres of bog, trying to rear a family and forced to send them abroad to earn money to pay rents and rates at home. Why should we create more homes on the land that are economic homes, and still leave uneconomic homes and homesteads that are always crying out for home assistance, either through the dole or through some other source? Why not make, so far as we possibly can, all the present uneconomic holdings into economic holdings first, and, having done that, then try and meet, so far as we possibly can, the requirements of the landless men? There is a ramp in certain parts of the country at the present time the effect of which is that nothing should be done with regard to land settlement in the areas concerned until all the landless men in these areas, including the good-for-nothings, should get land first. Now, I do not think that anybody on any side of this House would subscribe to that policy, and I think that the Land Commission should not allow itself to fall into that trap, no matter what pressure may be brought upon it by any Party in this House or by any individual. Land should be provided for the uneconomic holders first. They have been waiting long enough for it, and now that special powers are being conferred under this Bill, I think relief should be given to these people first.

Now, that brings me to the migration problem. I have seen in the newspapers where slurs have been cast upon people who have been migrated from the West to the Midlands.

Surely, that is a matter that should have been raised on the Estimate? It is not relevant to this Bill.

Well, Sir, on the question of the administration of the Land Commission——

It was not discussed on this Bill.

Very well, Sir, but I submit that this has as much to do with the transferring of landholders from the West and planting them in the Midlands as in the case of co-operative farms, which has been suggested.

The Deputy's direct questioning of the Chair's ruling does not appeal to the Chair. The question of migration has not been ruled out by the Chair, but some remarks made on the Estimate as to the type of the migrants from the West, may not be replied to, now.

Well, I shall not discuss the remarks, Sir, but I should like to say that I think the policy of migration is good national policy, and one that should be adopted by all Parties in the House. Migration will improve the social standing, or perhaps I should say the lack of social standing, in some of what I might call the bullock areas of the Midlands. It will create a social standing where there is none at the moment, and I think the policy of migration should be adopted and encouraged by all Parties in this House. Now, with regard to the suggestions of co-operative farming, again I suggest that those suggestions are made by people who live on the land only in theory. I am afraid that the people of this country are not built or are not born to work co-operative farms. We are making demands for fixity of tenure; why, then, should there be a demand for co-operative farming? Fixity of tenure and co-operative farming do not go hand in hand, and if you have fixity of tenure you will not require co-operative farming in the sense of the word in which, I think, it has been used. Of course, you always have a certain amount of co-operative farming in the real sense of the word. You have it in the West of Ireland on a large scale, where the farmers cooperate in lending their horses to one another, swopping implements or swopping or borrowing seeds. That is co-operation in the real sense of the word, and you have that in every case where farming is carried out on an extensive scale among small farmers, and particularly in the West. You cannot have, in this country, co-operative farming of the kind that has been suggested here, and I think it would be foolish to try to introduce it here—except, of course, that the Government might carry it out as a kind of experiment to see how much could be made on one farm; but you cannot extend it on any greater scale, and it is my opinion that it would be foolish to try to do so and that it would not work. That is my opinion.

Now on the question of the administration of the Land Commission, I am afraid that, no matter what powers are given, the administration will be bad. Some of the Acts are very good, but the administration of the Land Commission seems to spoil everything. I do not say that it is the fault of the individuals who do the work or of those who give the instructions for the work to be carried out. I am afraid that it is some general principle in connection with the Land Commission that is wrong. Take the question of the parcelling out of land. I think it is wrong, in parcelling out land, to give a holding of land to a small farmer a mile or a mile and a half, and sometimes two miles, away from where he lives. Of course, it may seem to be all right for him to get that parcel of land. He has been running after it and demanding it, but in many cases he will find, after two or three years, that the parcel of land is not an economic proposition, because it is too far from his home for him to be able to till it or to manure it properly, or to drive his cattle there in the mornings and take them back in the evenings, as in the case of milch cows. That is a system that has been adopted to some extent by the Land Commission and I hold that it is a wrong system. I think that they do not tackle this problem properly in all its aspects, and I hold that, instead of parcelling out land in that way, they should endeavour to create one or two homes or homesteads and transfer the people from the local area into these holdings. That would go a long way towards settling the problem, but as things are at present it only means that you are creating another problem with regard to the land, that will have to be solved again in another twenty years' time or so.

A remark was made yesterday by Deputy Dillon with regard to land in the Ballyhaunis area. As usual, that Deputy is most voluble and most intelligent on subjects about which he knows nothing. That was the position yesterday. If Deputy Dillon would confine his remarks to something nearer home, and to any land trouble that may exist in his own particular area, and about which he knows more than I do, he might be more helpful. Now, in the Ballyhaunis area there is trouble, but that trouble, in my opinion again, is principally because of the administration of the Land Commission, which is faulty. The people who are looking for land there are not good-for-nothings, and what is happening is that some of the best farmers there are not getting land, just because the Land Commission has a system of parcelling out land, principally on a valuation basis. Anybody who has experience of rural Ireland knows that, very often, a man with a valuation of £7 has a holding that, from a tillage point of view or any other point of view, is very much inferior to that of a man with a valuation of £3: the reason being that the man with the valuation of £3, within the past 25 or 30 years, might have reclaimed and improved 30 or 40 acres of bog and, as a result, might have a much more productive holding that the man with the valuation of £7. In dividing up land, I think the Land Commission should take cognisance, first, of the area of the land, and then of its productivity, and parcel it out on that basis, instead of parcelling it out on the valuation basis. If the Land Commission would do that I think that a great justice would be rendered to the people concerned, and if this Bill is passed I hope that the Land Commission will seek to improve their present methods of administration in that regard. If they do so, I think they would be meeting one of the most important requirements in this country at the present moment.

Deputy Cleary, it would appear, has little respect for fixity of tenure, and that is not surprising coming from men across the Shannon. He said that fixity of tenure was undermined by the 1923 Act. The position in 1923 was pretty similar to what it was now, and our attitude in 1923 was the same as what it is to-day. We considered then, as we consider now, that fixity of tenure is a sacred thing: that if a man had land and it had to be taken from him for the public good, then we hold it should be taken at the public expense and at its market value. That was the principle which we agreed to on the 1923 Act, and if that principle was not enshrined in the Act it was due to an oversight. I understand that the difficulty mainly responsible for the introduction of this Bill covers some technical point about the use of the word "commissioner" or "commissioners," but whatever those technicalities may be, our intention in 1923 was the same as it is now, namely, that there should be full compensation for disturbance.

Fixity of tenure has been treated as a light thing here by some people. I say that if there is to be any infringement of that principle of fixity of tenure, then, in so far as we depart from it, we are a nation of robbers. Nothing in this State, or in any State, should be more sacred than property or land. There is certainly no other industry in this country into which more sweat or labour have been put. The people have suffered more hardship for the land than for almost anything else. It is an astonishing thing that there seems to be more respect for foreigners, many of whom have only been in the country for a few months, and who own property in the City of Dublin, than there is for the people who have been on the land here for 2,000 years. All property must be treated on the same basis. We are told that 65 per cent. or 67 per cent. of the rateable value of Dublin is in the hands of foreigners, people who have been here only a few years. That ought to set the people of this country thinking about the rights of property and fixity of tenure.

The speech made here this evening by Deputy Norton was much on the lines of the speeches made in previous debates by his predecessors. The language he used was much the same as that used in other days by the then Deputy Johnson, the leader of the Party at that time. We had those pronouncements from those armchair farmers, office chair farmers—who know nothing at all about farming. We had talk here to-day about the people who use the land by tilling it as opposed to those who use it for cattle production. That is one of the old cods of attitudes that has long since been exploded. Every Minister for Agriculture here has said that cattle production must be the mainstay of this country. That has always been so, and must continue to be so.

I would like to ask this question: What class of national production must we engage in in order to balance our imports? Surely our national production must be directed towards producing the articles that we must sell outside, and thereby help to balance our imports. In the absence of being able to do that, what would be the end of this country inside of ten years. It ought to be our aim to produce that which the country can produce to the best advantage, and, equally important, what our customers will want to buy from us. There seem to be two lines of thought in this House—the one expressed by the Minister for Finance who says that national credit must be preserved. That is a doctrine that every Minister must subscribe to. Then there is the line of thought expressed by Deputies who seem to be animated not by the national interest or the national credit, but by the votes they expect to get in their own constituencies: by the thought as to whether they will get returned at the next election or not.

Deputy Gorey does not think of that at all.

One Deputy said that, as regards farms of 20 acres, there should be no doubt of free sale in their case. I wonder what about the farms over that acreage? Deputy Allen told us last night that there had been no interference as regards the price of land because of the operations of the Land Commission. Everybody knows that in the case of farms of 50 and 60 acres there was no interference as between buyers and the people willing to sell because the people in a particular county knew that farms of that size were under the danger line. But what was the position in the case of farms that were over the danger line? You could go to the auctioneers in any county in Ireland and be told that they had 100 or 50 or 40 farms on their books, and that they could not get a bob for them. Deputy Allen must have knowledge of that as every other member of the House has. Yet, he got up last evening and made the brass faced speech that we listened to. I had some knowledge of what the Deputy could do during election time so that I was not surprised at some of the stuff he poured out here last evening.

He is not an arm-chair farmer.

Everybody knows the damage that has been done in connection with the sale of land and the value of property by the operations of the Land Commission. There was no sale at all for farms of 80 or 100 acres. They were all in the auctioneers' hands and could not be sold. Deputy Allen told us that some of them went to the Land Commission and sold voluntarily because they were the best buyers. What I want to say on that is, that they went because the Land Commission were the only buyers.

The farms that I mentioned were under 100 acres.

And they sold to them because they were the only buyers. There was no one else on the market who would buy them.

Not at all.

The position created was that the sale of those farms was destroyed in the country where the local clubs were active. Nobody had a chance of selling that class of farm at all. You had this position of which I can speak from my own knowledge. In my county the craze for land is not very acute because it is a type of county that does not need much change. But I knew fellows there who, before they sold their farms, were applying for land elsewhere. I knew two of them. One got a farm from his aunt. Another agreed with his brother to sell off the farm. As soon as they got the members of the Fianna Fáil Club going, I knew two others who were claimants for land and were prepared to sell their own farms. In spite of what we know is going on, Deputies get up here and say that there is no interference with fixity of tenure.

Apart from the present system, there is another way in which the land question could be solved, though there would have to be, I think, considerable disadvantages from it. I do not think myself that it is a good one but I will mention it. It is that where the Land Commission think there is a large farm that is not well managed, if they have the power let them take it, divide it into 30-acre holdings and put it up for sale by public auction. In that case you would, I think, have plenty of buyers. You would perhaps get people with means and some experience to bid for it. On the other hand, there would be this disadvantage that it does not meet the case of the man who has no means and who would otherwise be a good man to have land and own it. At any rate, that system would have the merit that it would tend to preserve the national credit. It would preserve free sale and it would avoid State expenditure. There would be no question of redemption values. The procedure of the Land Commission is what I take exception to. They send down their valuer and they agree to fix a price for a particular farm. In every case that we know of it has been less than the market value, or about the market value but, having fixed that price, they then make out what the redemption value of the annuity was, and they deduct that from the price. There is nothing like free sale there. There is nothing like market value. We heard of a case here where, I think, £5 eventually represented the occupier's interest. There are plenty of cases where larger sums are given but, unfortunately, the figure is far below what the farm would fetch in the market. The Land Commission has no compunction about seizing property which should not be seized except at market value. But I want to make this distinction. I do not adhere to the mad prices which obtained during the war as a fair standard of value. I want to be quite fair all round. The mad prices that were paid in 1916, 1917 and up to 1922 and 1923 should not be accepted as the standard. The prices which obtained before 1915 should be gone back to as the standard of value. One of the great faults in the 1923 Act was that purchases of untenanted land at that time were based on the value they were getting then. I argued that that should not be so, and that the matter should be delayed until such time as the price came back to the normal level, but the pressure was there from people who wanted to get the land divided, and they got it, but at more than it was worth.

Deputy Norton talks about inducements to remain on the land. What inducement is there for the son of a farmer with 20 or 24 acres to remain on the land. Deputy Norton ought to remember that we are not dealing with a question which will be solved in the next four or five or ten years. We are dealing with a question which is going to affect this State forever, and, although it may take Deputy Norton out of a difficulty at present and secure him a few votes in his district, we ought to take the longer view and ask ourselves what will the problem be in 25 or 30 years when a new generation will have been bred on the land, and will be looking for inducements to remain on the land. I have nothing to say on the question of co-operative farming. I myself think it is impossible; I do not know whether or not that is due to the fact that our Irish mentality is different from that of other people. I do not believe it could be a success anywhere without force. It is full of pitfalls. It may be possible, but I do not think it is.

I was rather pleased with the attitude of Deputy Norton with regard to the larger farmers who really farm their land and employ labour—either their own people or people receiving a wage—because in managing his land the larger farmer has advantages which three or four smaller farmers would not have. He has the advantage of better education perhaps; he is a better manager, and has more expert knowledge. There is nobody, I think, getting more advantage out of land in this country to-day than the larger farmer who has that expert knowledge. Deputy Norton talked about Kildare. One has only to travel through that county, on the railway or on the roads, and see the farms divided there and the use made of them in the last three or four years, and compare that with the use made of them before, even in the worst ranching days, to be able to decide which produced the more national wealth. Anybody seeing the picture for the last five or ten years, and comparing it with the picture to-day, will have no difficulty in deciding when more national wealth was produced. It is not now. All this talk about tillage as compared with cattle production is the greatest "cod" the people ever heard. Last year, you had a drought from Christmas until the end of May, and from the end of May until February you had a deluge. In the one year you would need two distinct things if you wanted to continue tillage farming here. You would want an irrigation system from March until the end of May, and you would want a glass house all over the State for the rest of the year. But there is no sympathy for the people who lost everything they had. There is no sympathy for the people whose crops rotted. What is their position, compared with that of people in business? The latter have guaranteed profits over their counters; they are compensated to the extent of 150 per cent. if there is any interference with anything they have got, and their employees are compensated for any loss of employment. Everybody is considered in this country except the farmer, and the people living on the land, because they are inarticulate, and because hitherto they have been the playthings of political Parties in this country

There was a case which occupied some attention recently; perhaps I do not know all the facts, but the case appeared in the Press. I think it was a County Galway case. A man and his son were put to jail because they resisted the acquiring of a 60-acre farm. The young man was 20 or 21 years of age, and the father had not made the farm over to him. He had five sons, and had no other means of putting them to a profitable occupation. The Land Commission comes along and takes the farm which that boy was to get. I think there is something wrong there. There must be something wrong. Perhaps I have been misinformed on the facts, but I am only taking what the newspapers reported. It seems to me a most extraordinary thing that that land, which the owner had in his possession for God knows how long and which he wanted for his sons, should be taken from him, and that he could go to the devil or to England—that country about which all this hypocrisy is being talked. We are told there is no influence by Fianna Fáil Clubs. Of course there is. In some cases, were it not for the commonsense of the Land Commission, if the claims that were made were acceded to we would have had an era of the greatest tyranny this country has ever known.

There ought to be a departure from the present system, if the State in its wisdom decides to carry out a certain policy, a policy to which we have all subscribed since 1923. I was as much responsible for the provisions of the 1923 Act, and far more so, than any man living to-day. There was one man more responsible than I was, but he is no longer with us. After him, I was more responsible for the provisions of that Act than any man living to-day. But the settlement of the land question should not be done at the expense of the individual in occupation. He was to get market value—whatever price it would fetch in accordance with the times. This national question should be settled at the national expense, and not at the expense of the men in occupation. It has been done at the expense of the men in occupation for the last seven years, and that should not continue. It is a clear shame and a scandal that it should continue. If the nation in its wisdom decides that this should be done, let it be done at the expense of the nation, and not at the expense of the individual in occupation of the land. I did not intend to speak at all on this Bill, as it is merely enlarging a principle. What induced me to speak was that I wanted to express my disagreement with some of the things that have been said. That is all I have to say on the matter, but I hope that this will mean the end of Land Bills in this House.

I hope this Bill will do what the previous Bills intended to do and that we will not be disillusioned as we have been up to the present by the 1933 and 1936 Land Acts. I say that coming from a county where the land question has been a subject of agitation for a very long time, and also a county where the Congested Districts Board, the Estates Commissioners, and the Land Commission have done as much if not more than in any other county to improve the lot of the people. But a good deal yet remains to be done. I have heard people from the Midlands stating in this House from time to time that if congestion has to be relieved in the West the land available in the West should be acquired and the experiment tried on there. It may be news to them that there are thousands and thousands of acres of land even in County Galway that could not be touched or interfered with until this Bill becomes law.

As to the fixity of tenure we have heard so much about, as a farmer I have respect for fixity of tenure; but there is a type of fixity of tenure that I am very glad is being interfered with in a legal way rather than by other methods, as it certainly would have been were it not that these people to whom I am referring had hopes that a native Irish Government would bring about the acquisition of these lands. The fixity of tenure I am referring to is that which was brought about in 1923. A number of people who came in on the Pollock and Daly estates as graziers under the 11 months' system got leases and after holding the land for some years on the lease they were made judicial tenants in 1923, not of 100 or 200 acres, but of several hundred acres. The State at that time was called upon to pay the landlord for his interest in that land, and now the State will again be called upon to pay these judicial tenants for their interest in that land. That is a double burden imposed upon the State owing to what was enacted in the Land Act of 1923. I am sure that the people who did that at the time did it with the best intentions, but, at the same time, the grievance remains, and people are eagerly awaiting the enactment of a law to set aside that condition of affairs.

As I said, a good deal was done in County Galway for the past 36 years by the various Departments interested in the resettlement of the land. A number of people in County Galway gave up land voluntarily even before there was any native Government here. They were people who had the full advantages of the British market as it then was, but they farmed their land in such a way that even then it was not profitable. Even though there was no pressure brought to bear on them, they were willing to hand it over to the Congested Districts Board, the Estates Commissioners, or the Land Commission.

I do not believe that fixity of tenure, such as has been put forward from the Opposite Benches can ever be interfered with in this country while you have a democratic system of Government obtaining here and while there is a responsible Government which, from time to time, has to face the people for any glaring injustice of that kind. If land is taken from a person working it properly in the interest both of his own family and the nation generally and an attempt of that kind is made, any Deputy has the right to put down a question here, and if he does not get a satisfactory reply he can raise it on the adjournment. I am sure that a storm of indignation will arise in that particular district which would prevent any Government from attempting to interfere with fixity of tenure such as has been put forward by the people on the Opposite side.

Another thing that has been mentioned here is that the jeopardising of fixity of tenure has interfered very much with credit being given by the banks. We all know that that is not so. The credit that was given by the banks and the hardships which have accrued therefrom was given by the banks in circumstances that were abnormal and unusual. If there is anything more than another which would interfere with credit it is the kind of fixity of tenure that has its roots in this country for half a century at least and perhaps longer, in the days of the agrarian trouble. It is well known that if a small farmer or even a large farmer gets into difficulties with the bank or a local shopkeeper or anybody else there is a considerable amount of sympathy for him and it all has its roots in that. It is not easy to break that tradition. If it were possible for a bank or a shopkeeper or anybody else as is the case in other countries to put up that man's farm for sale and have a free sale in that way without any interference I firmly believe that I as a farmer would at any time get from a bank sufficient credit to carry on. But rightly or wrongly that tradition is there. If a man in 1919 or 1920 succeeded in getting from a bank a considerable sum of money by way of loan and things went against him, as certainly they have gone against farmers from 1921 up to the present time, it did not matter whether he was a good farmer or as Deputy Dillon would describe him a jolly good fellow, he certainly got and even at the present time would get the sympathy of a considerable number of people. The banks have tried in many instances to collect their money but they have failed because they know quite well that if they put up the land for sale by auction nobody would buy it.

That is the very reason why the banks are now very reluctant to advance credit to farmers. It is because of the tradition that is there, and it is so, not merely in respect to banks, but local shopkeepers and everyone else. That is the situation that faces us. If credit is to be given to anyone by any corporation, or by any set of individuals, that is the situation that will have to be faced, because land security is neither negotiable nor convertible owing to the tradition of sympathy that is there with "the down-and-out," irrespective of whether he is good or bad.

I wish to refer also to the compulsory powers of the Land Acts. I am not aware if the Land Commission have compulsory powers to acquire turbary. If so, well and good. If not, I believe an amendment should be inserted in the Bill giving that right, because turbary in many parts is just as valuable and as useful as land. A number of tenants who were given holdings on estates are still without turbary. In parts of the country hundreds of acres of bogs have been left in the hands of owners who sold their estates, and they are deriving big incomes from turbary, irrespective of whether they are living in this country or outside of it. I hold that 30/- an Irish perch is too high a price to have to pay for turf. The Land Commission in many areas have taken over turbary and given it to other people, the price working out at 8/4 yearly for three perches. I consider that people that have to pay 30/- are being unjustly treated and that their grievance should be removed.

When the Land Commission is carrying out a migration scheme they acquire land in order to relieve congestion. I know districts where people are living on non-arable land that is considered suitable for afforestation purposes, but for some reason these people's claims will not be considered for exchange to holdings elsewhere. There is a lack of arrangement between the afforestation section and the Land Commission. There should be some arrangement whereby persons living on land of a non-arable character, which is only suitable for afforestation and where no suitable land is available for them, should be provided with land elsewhere and not to be condemned to live in such places for all time. They should be treated as landless men and given holdings of arable land in some other part. Their holdings might then be given to the Forestry Department. These people should not be left in the condition under which they have been living for generations. I think the Minister stated on a previous occasion that the claims of very few landless men would be considered for land in future. If that is applied generally I have no fault to find, but if it only applies to the western or congested areas where land is scarce I will certainly find fault with it. If landless people are to be considered as applicants for land simply because they are in a locality where land is available that would be a bad principle to follow. It would be a bad principle if landless men in other districts were not to be considered if they were suitable allottees. The position of all landless men should be taken into consideration and the best selected as tenants. There was some talk that the price paid for land by the Land Commission was not the market price. There might be something in that statement. I know some cases where land in County Galway was sold by auction by order of the courts in recent months, but the Land Commission could not come in. They were prevented entering into competition because of some regulation. I am quite sure that if they had been allowed to make an offer, they would have paid a very much greater price than was got for the land by public auction. I do not say that there is very much in that complaint. I believe that it is only right and reasonable that a fair price should be given for land. I do not think anybody in any part of the House is in favour of anything like confiscation. I believe the Land Commission could give a good price for land and that at the present time people are prepared to pay a reasonable and a decent annuity on it. One of the big problems that I have to contend with is the number of people who are coming forward to ask me to make representations so that they will get land. I do not think the extent of the flight from the land is anything like what we have been listening to. I am glad that this Bill has been brought in. It is long overdue. I hope we will have more faith in it after it is working for three or four years than we experienced under previous Acts that burst up when brought before the courts. If it fails to do what it is intended to do, then the sooner we try to forget about land division and land settlement the better.

I want to make it clear at the outset that I am not opposed to the division of land. I believe that there are certain types of land that should be divided, but I am firmly convinced that the powers vested in and exercised by the Land Commission for the acquisition and resumption of holdings at the present time is disastrous to agricultural interests. The Act of 1923 gave limited compulsory powers of acquisition to the Land Commission, but the various Acts passed since then by the present Government, culminating in the measure now before the House, give absolute powers to the Land Commission. There are no obstacles whatever. In fact the powers given are tantamount to confiscation. I believe these various Land Acts are undermining and destroying, from the very foundation, the roots of our agricultural people in the security of their holding. They are a menace to the prosperity of the country, because they tend to destroy, to a great extent, the right of ownership that our people fought so hard to secure. They have destroyed in a very effective manner the greatest medium of security for agriculture, that is, the collateral security of the land. It will be a very bad day for this country when our great agricultural industry is crushed and broken. We are facing that situation at the hands of the present Government. This Bill, along with the other Land Acts, is bringing about a position when no man will be able to raise a shilling on land. And this is at a time when it is imperative that the farmers should be supplied with loans.

I listened to Deputy Allen yesterday evening, and I was amazed, because I believed that Deputy Allen was a very intelligent Deputy—at least, that he was above the average in his Party— and I thought that he would be capable of analysing the implications and reactions of this Bill and its predecessors on the security of land tenure and its use as a method of securing loans for farmers. The Deputy is a member of the Agricultural Commission.

One of the biggest problems that the commission will have to deal with is the finding of means to put loans in the hands of farmers. I think, from the views Deputy Allen expressed here yesterday evening, he is altogether incapable of examining the real implications of those measures. I do not think he is fit to sit on that commission.

Hear, hear!

He might be a dangerous man. Ask him to withdraw from it.

Perhaps I was foolish enough to believe that he was capable of raising himself above the level of an ordinary political back. We have been told in the Banking Commission Report of the importance of this matter. We have been told by many prominent and astute public men of the necessity of restoring the security of tenure to our farmers, especially for the purpose of raising loans. Paragraph 509 of the Banking Commission Report says:

"Great importance attaches to the question of security of tenure. This, as is well known, was one of the primary objects of the early land legislation and it must always remain a fundamental factor in a healthy agricultural system. It is in particular the best type of farmer who thinks of adding to his capital investment in agriculture that is most affected by this consideration. The extensive compulsory powers which are now vested in the Land Commission deserve serious notice from this point of view."

The majority report of the Banking Commission will, I am afraid, in a short time become our bible.

What was the commission set up for? Was it a fraud or what? In paragraph 514 the report says:

"It is especially open to objection when, as at present, it can be effected under standing powers of the Land Commission on repeated occasions in respect of the same land."

The commission attach great importance, from the credit standpoint, to terminating the compulsory powers of acquisition vested in the Land Commission. It means, in other words, that a man can be put through the mill time and again by the Land Commission. He can be troubled over and over again. If he wins his case in the first instance, in six months' time they can come back at him again. Paragraph 514 proceeds:

"So far as the banking and credit situation is concerned, the uncertainty affecting the ultimate value of charges on land, in view of the wide powers vested in the Land Commission, threatens to prejudice the credit position of the farmer in an increasing degree. This power of the Land Commission is not allowed to prejudice charges in favour of the Board of Works or other State charges, or even permanent improvement charges of the Agricultural Credit Corporation under Section 28 of the Agricultural Credit Act, 1920.

The discrimination against charges other than these is an inconsistency for which there does not seem to be a satisfactory explanation. If continued, we fear that it will tend increasingly to hamper the granting of credit to farmers."

That is the position. In another paragraph, paragraph 328, the report says:

"Not only is there the danger that a farm may be acquired by the Land Commission at a price which, perhaps for temporary reasons, may be materially below the value as estimated on a long view for the purpose of a bank loan, but experience has shown the existence of a considerable risk that agitators may use wrongful pressure to exploit the powers of the Land Commission, by creating conditions for which there is no ready solution other than sale to the Land Commission."

Would there not be a value put on it?

Did they mention Deputy Corry in the report at all?

Evidently Deputy Corry does not like that report and Deputy Cleary told the House he had no belief whatever in it. With the permission of the Chair, I will read a statement made by the Minister for Finance. I expect the Deputies on the other side will recognise the Minister as somewhat of an authority on this matter.

Not about beet, anyway.

No, that is right.

An Leas Cheann-Comhairle

I hope this has reference to land purchase?

Of course it has. The Minister for Finance, speaking in the Seanad on 22nd March, on the Central Fund Bill, said:

"...and it would have been of very great value indeed if, before this debate had commenced, the Seanad had adverted to the fact that the Minister for Lands has already received the permission of the Dáil to introduce a Bill amending the existing Land Acts, in the course of the discussion upon which, no doubt, this question of security of tenure— as a factor—particularly, I think, in determining the terms upon which agricultural credit may be made available for agriculturists could have been raised. Then it might have been thought, perhaps, that a much more valuable discussion could take place upon the Land Bill than, possibly, in the light of my reply, the discussion here will be."

Evidently, the Minister for Finance was expecting that this would be raised and, if possible, some section introduced into the Bill securing the rights of the tenant farmer. He goes on to say:

"This question of security of tenure in land does complicate a great many of our social and economic difficulties. Undoubtedly, it is a very large factor in determining the terms upon which credit may be made available for farmers. Naturally, if a lender thinks that a prospective borrower is not secure in his title to his land, which is generally the only security that borrower has to offer—if the lender feels that the borrower is not secure in his title, that his title is faulty or that he is likely to be disturbed for some reason other than that he wilfully fails to meet his obligations, the lender is going to be slow in making any advance to such a borrower. Therefore, as Minister for Finance, who is concerned with the question of—or at any rate, who is very often made responsible for—the provision or non-provision, not merely of credit for agriculturists, but of credit for every other section of the community, prima facie, I am in favour of security of tenure because it does mean, if effective, that credit will be made available at more favourable terms.”

As I have pointed out the biggest problem that confronts this country is that of supplying loans to farmers. It has been stated from all sides of the House that this is a vital necessity if the farmers are to be rehabilitated, put into an economic position. If they are to be enabled to work their land, these loans are absolutely necessary. We were told by many Deputies from the Government Benches that there was nothing in this idea of security of tenure and that it has not affected credit. Deputy Allen said that it had not.

It has not, and the Deputy knows it.

It is a well-known fact. How is this question of loans going to be solved? How can it be solved except on this basis? Do Deputies opposite suggest that State moneys should be shovelled out without any security, as has happened in the case of the Carbury Bog scheme and similar schemes in other places? Can the State afford to shovel out money indiscriminately without any security, and what type of security has the farmer of this country to offer? He has none, except the security of the land, and that is a sound security if his title to that land is restored by the State.

It is sound.

It is not sound, as things are at the moment, and if the Deputy, or any other Deputy, goes to any bank at the present time he will find that he will not be able to raise a "bob" on the security of his holding.

The Deputy says he will not be able to raise it. Why?

Because he has no security whatever.

I suppose the only fellow who has security is the fellow with the 5,000-acre farm? He will not be shifted ever.

What did the Deputy say?

The fellow with the 5,000-acre farm is all right, I suppose?

We are not suggesting, nor have we suggested at any time, that land acquisition and division should be dropped. That is not the point. Our argument is that a fair price ought to be paid for the land and that fair compensation ought to be given for any land that is to be acquired.

We agree with that.

That is what is frightening the bankers and injuring credit generally, because no man knows what his farm is going to realise. Very often, as I said before, the land is taken up, compulsorily, at a price that is tantamount to confiscation. What we want is that any land that is acquired for the purpose of division in this country ought to be acquired in a competitive market and at a competitive price in the open market, if necessary. Failing that, there is an alternative, and that is that the people who are going to fix compensation ought to be a body of people outside the Land Commission altogether—an independent tribunal.

Hear, hear!

The bank managers?

Does anybody pretend that the Land Commission at the moment is holding the scales fairly as between one citizen and another in matters of this sort? Is not every Deputy, on any side of this House, prepared to admit that, time and again, people have been robbed and plundered in this matter of the acquisition of land, and is it fair or just that that should be the case? There is a simple way of getting over this problem, and that is that an independent tribunal should be set up to deal with this matter of the fixing of compensation. It is an extraordinary state of affairs that any Department should get powers from this House to acquire property compulsorily and also should have the right to fix the compensation to be awarded. Yet, that is the position. I heard Deputy Corry, on a previous occasion, taking exception to a somewhat similar situation in connection with the fixing of the price of beet by a State-owned institution. This is on the same basis, or it is done practically on the same basis, except that it is on a much larger scale, because in the one case it would be only a matter of a few tons of beet whereas in this case it is a question of a person's whole property. As I say, the scales have never been fairly held or balanced by the Land Commission in this matter, and in each and every case, about which any Deputy knows, he must know full well that fair compensation has not been paid.

Now, I should like to mention one particular case of which I have knowledge. I am referring to the case of a widow who held two farms in the County Wicklow. One farm contained 234 statute acres and the other contained 161 statute acres, or a total of 395 statute acres. She was offered £3,000 on more than one occasion for these two holdings, but they now have been acquired compulsorily by the Land Commission for a sum of £1,227. That woman lost £1,800 as a result of the compulsory acquisition of her holdings.

Are there any other factors in the case?

In the case of the smaller holding, of 161 acres, the Land Commission came down and valued the holding at £1,750 and after stopping the redemption costs out of that she was entitled to draw £191 for a holding of 161 acres. On appeal, that was increased to £491.

Was the previous case appealed?

In connection with the 161 acres, on appeal, she got an increased price of £300, or £491 altogether. Now, I cannot understand the Land Commission acting in this respect like an ordinary commercial individual and trying to buy as cheaply as they can. They ought not to act in that way, but they ought to act fairly and justly as between one citizen and another in this country. That is their duty and their responsibility, but they have never done that. They have acted just like a commercial body in trying to buy at the lowest possible price and squelch the unfortunate individual and use the powers conferred on them and vested in them by this House to rob and plunder the individual concerned. Is it not the duty of the Minister's Department, or of any Department of State for that matter, to see that justice is done for every individual in this State, and that if land is to be acquired, the money for which is being provided by the State as a whole, no particular individual will be sacrificed in the acquisition of that land for the purpose of division?

Would the Deputy give us particulars as to the first case he quoted, with regard to the widow?

It is all the same case.

Did she appeal?

What was the result of the appeal?

I told the Deputy already. She had two farms, one of 234 acres and another of 161 acres, and she was offered £3,000, and finally the land was acquired compulsorily and she received, in bonds—4 per cent. bonds—£1,246, which, when realised, made £1,227, They were practically at par.

Did she appeal?

Yes. That is the final price she received in bonds, which she cashed.

What was the first price? My information is that she did not appeal.

Does the Deputy know the woman I am talking about?

I do, and investigated the case.

The Deputy knows nothing at all about it, and I think he should not be making an ass of himself. He is not a walking encyclopaedia who knows everything that occurs all over the country.

Do not be losing time with him.

I am not minding him at all.

Nobody does.

There has been a good deal said about stability and progress. Is the state of affairs revealed by this Bill going to make for stability and progress? Can anyone blame the joint stock banks of the country for not advancing loans to farmers when the farmers can be pushed out of their holdings at any time by the Land Commission?

When they are not working the land.

The law is that, whether they are working the land or not, they can be pushed out. We do not want a situation of that sort. There is no use in Deputies saying that that is not being done. We are dealing with this Land Bill, and it is our responsibility to see that it is made watertight: to see that the citizen who ought to be protected and is an asset to the State is protected. He is not being protected at present.

It has been said that the Fianna Fáil clubs do not interfere in the division of land. Let me tell what happened to me three years ago. I may say that the whole trouble was started by the Fianna Fáil club. I possess approximately 250 statute acres of land. In that particular year I had 100 statute acres under roots and grain crop. Deputy Hickey can judge for himself from that whether I was working my farm properly or not. An inspector from the Land Commission came down and enquired from me how I was working my holding. I told him that was my job and to go to the devil: that it was no concern of his, and that I would give him no information. Finally, that man told me before he left—when I had cooled down a bit——

When it was safe to go near you.

He said, first of all to me that he could not understand how I handled that amount of tillage. He admitted that he had over 100 acres of land himself and that he tilled hardly any of it. Yet, we have people on the other side coming in here, blowing and boasting about tillage, about the working of land and all that sort of thing, and saying that the Fianna Fáil clubs are not interfering with the people's rights in this country. I say they did their damnedest to interfere with me and with my rights, but I defied them.

But the land was not taken from you.

What right had any inspector in the Land Commission to come down and ask me how I was working my holding.

And the land is yours still?

And will be.

The point that I want to make is, that if the activities of certain Fianna Fáil clubs in my county were put into effect the land might not be mine, notwithstanding the way I was working it. I want to put that to Deputy Hickey.

I am not a bit impressed by the Deputy trying to convince me.

Deputy Hickey has been throwing that bone of contention into my speech—how the land was worked.

I have some little knowledge of what is happening. I know all the land that Deputy Gorey has.

If the Government would manfully face up to the situation the problem to be dealt with is not a big one at all. If you want to negotiate loans to help farmers there is only one way in which that can be done: First of all, restore them their security of tenure. The matter has been dealt with in paragraph 328 of the Banking Commission's Report. It is pointed out that, notwithstanding the restoration of security of tenure it might be difficult to negotiate a loan if there is not good-will in the locality in which the farm is situated, and that in such a case you will not get any financial corporation or bank to advance loans. I admit that is the case. I contend that, where you are going to negotiate loans to farmers, a determined effort must be made to make our people recognise their liabilities and their responsibility to redeem the loans. The people will have to be taught that a recognition of that responsibility is a sacred thing, and that if money is loaned by individuals, by banks or by financial corporations, these loans will have to be redeemed.

I think that you would need to do more than restore security of tenure to farmers. Take the case where banks have advanced loans, and where they have failed to redeem them within a reasonable time, due perhaps to the fact that there was not the necessary good-will in the locality to allow of the free sale of a holding. In a case like that the Land Commission should go in and take that holding at its fair market value, pay off the mortgage and give the balance to the tenant. That, I think, would help to get over the difficulty about good-will. It would also have the effect of making our people respect their liabilities where debts are incurred. The sooner that something like that is put into practice the better for our people and for the country generally. The fact is that you have too many who are looking for something for nothing; too many who are looking to evade their just responsibilities and liabilities. I suggest to the Minister that he should withdraw this Bill and restore security of tenure to the farmers in a properly drafted measure. The doing of that will not hamper in any way the division of land. The principle that ought to be insisted upon is that if it is thought proper, in the public interest and for the public good, to disturb a man in his holding then he should get a just and a fair price for his land, and that price should be determined by an independent tribunal.

I, with the members of the Party, support this Bill. If it has the effect of speeding up land division and of ending what I may describe as the infernal uncertainty under which the entire agricultural community live, then I approve of the Bill. The Banking Commission Report, in its reference to land division, made what I consider a very wise suggestion to the Government, namely, that they should conclude the acquisition of the lands that have been accepted and scheduled, amounting to in or about 700,000 acres, and that, having done that, they should stop and examine the results—that they should see how far land division had succeeded and how far further land division was likely to succeed. If this Bill can speed up land division, if it can enable the Land Commission to make decisions quickly as to whether certain lands should be divided or not, and get those decisions announced in areas where the people are waiting to hear them, then I say "Every good wish to the Bill," because I agree with many people who have spoken on both sides of the House that, in places where there are estates which the people want divided, and which have not been divided owing to obstructions, the uncertainty is destroying to some degree the national spirit of enterprise and initiative which should ordinarily exist amongst the agricultural community.

Land division has arisen in this country through the necessity to right an historical wrong, and it has gone on from that to something which is supposed to be a cure for the social ills of the country. There certainly is nothing more democratic in the world than this Bill. There is no question of that. The people of this country desire the land to be divided. They do desire that land occupied by large land-owners, who are employing very few people and are living entirely on the simplest form of cattle rearing, should be taken from them—compensation being given—and that the land should be divided amongst the landless men in their areas. There is no question that the Bill is thoroughly and absolutely democratic, but the people themselves have not expressed to us any opinion with regard to how long that land division should take, or how quickly the whole question of what land is to be divided should be decided. Therefore, we can speak freely on this matter without any danger of opposing the wishes of our constituents, and I do say that if this Bill—as I imagine from reading its many complicated clauses—will enable the Land Commission to carry out the suggestion in the Banking Commission Report, to complete the scheduling of so many hundreds of thousands of acres of land and then to examine what has happened, then the Bill to my mind is an excellent one.

There is a feeling of tremendous restlessness all over the country, particularly in the central areas, wherever land is to be divided. I believe in speaking out about those things. I myself think that the pressure brought on Deputies of this House by those who want land is an entirely undesirable thing. I think the whole atmosphere in many parts of the country in which people are waiting for 300 acre estates to be divided—no one knows whether they are going to be divided or how soon—is entirely wrong. If this Bill, as I said before, can end that position of affairs, it will be to the immense advantage of the country. It will bring back the spirit of independence amongst our people. It will stop what might be described as the escape from reality which affects the minds of people who think that they may somehow get land and be relieved of all their difficulties. In the case of larger farmers, who are in the position that they think they are giving enough employment and that their husbandry is good enough, but who are not quite sure—their circumstances, perhaps, do not permit them to employ more than they are employing—and who are worrying about what is going to happen to their land, it will enable them also to look forward to the future with some kind of hope and some kind of feeling of stability.

I think, too, that the Government are bound to make it known in the course of the next five years that land division is a thing which can act only in a very limited way in the future as far as the promoting of prosperity is concerned; that, outside of areas of the Gaeltacht and special migration schemes it is going to be impossible to satisfy even 25 per cent. of the demand for increased amounts of land for compulsory division. The number of acres available is not sufficient, and by no system of mathematics, by no system of juggling, can it be conceived that you could divide land up so that, in a purely ideal way, every single person would have a natural minimum right to land. At any rate, when the present Bill has had its effect the same uncertainty will continue, and whatever Government is in office—whether it is ours or another—will be driven by political pressure to try to take further steps to divide land, knowing very well that those steps may not be economical in their results. Once again, I say that this Bill is a thoroughly democratic Bill, and is wanted by the people of this country. All I can say is let us get through with it. Let us get those lands throughout the country scheduled and divided, and then let us consider what we are going to do in the future.

I said that land division was democratic. Naturally, because of our history, we are bound to transfer the ownership of land taken from our people to the people who originally had it. We were bound to undo the effects of the conquest. Having undone the effects of the conquest, I do suggest, Sir, that in the course of the next five years the people must be given plainly and simply a statement of the results of land division; that the Government and the Land Commission ought to be able to give this country the same kind of information that is given by the Department of Agriculture or the Department of Industry and Commerce about the results of the agricultural policy or the industrial policy. So far, we have no information to speak of from the Land Commission on the subject of land division—no information of a social kind. Now that things are more stable, now that we have no economic war, no civil war, no conflict on the national position of this country, now that we have peace and stability on the land, I should like to see the Land Commission starting a new section to deal with a close examination of the social results of land division. This Bill will not have a good effect unless that is carried out. What I mean by the social results of land division is as follows: First of all, you have the fact that, of the £26,000,000 of land bonds issued, so far, only £11,000,000 bear interest. The rest is a debt of £15,000,000 imposed on the whole community. That is a very large burden, a burden that is very well worth while if it can be shown that the economic effects of the land division which arose as a result of that burden are worth while. That is the first big fence which has to be got over in order to prove that land division is successful, and that that money is worth spending.

Other facts which should be made plain to the people are, for example, the changes in emigration, the changes in unemployment assistance, the changes in the marriage rate, the changes in the total production of crops and cattle in areas where land division has been carried out extensively. Those facts are not given either by the Department of Agriculture or by the Department of Industry and Commerce, and they are not given in the Banking Commission Report. I submit that members of all Parties in this House who believe in land division must, if they are to be honest with their constituents, demand that those facts be placed before them in the course of the next five years. Those facts for the last five years would have been worth nothing because we had an economic war, we had a very rapid change in social conditions, we had a condition of instability, but those facts in the course of the next five years will be worth a great deal to our own people in judging what is to be the future of land division after this Bill has had its full effect. Another factor of extreme importance to the people in this country is the question of the state of land maintenance and land improvement in estates that have been divided; how does the land in the divided estates compare in quality, improvement and maintenance, with what it was before it was divided?

Notice taken that 20 members were not present.

House counted, and, 20 members being present,

This Bill should enable the Government to speed up land division at a rate at which it should be possible for an examination of the whole result of land division to date to be carried out. I am perfectly certain that that examination will reveal the fact that land division to a very considerable degree has proved effective. It has given people who have had absolutely no chance of making a livelihood for themselves a reasonable chance of making that livelihood and it has righted what was a very terrible social wrong in this country. I am also quite sure that that examination will reveal that, when the effect of the Land Acts of 1933 and 1936, together with this Bill, have been fully felt, the Government will definitely have to reconsider what they are going to do in future.

This is the only agricultural country in the world with more or less modern methods and a modern system of livelihood for the people in which credit based on land is not available to a large degree. I agree with Deputy Beegan when he stated that the principle reason for the lack of credit was the holding up of the sale of land when seized for the purpose of recovery of debt. I hope every Deputy will have the courage of Deputy Beegan, and that courage has been revealed on more than one occasion, to say these things not only in the House but outside, and to go around and explain to the people that the holding up of the sale of a farm of a man who has fallen by the wayside has no good social results in any sense. If Deputies take Deputy Beegan's advice and do what he has done, it will be much more easy to obtain credit on land.

I hope Deputy Beegan will welcome his interpreter.

As far as credit on land is concerned in relation to this Bill, I see no way out of the difficulties. Ever since land division began in this country inevitably credit to a certain degree has been restricted through the uncertainty of the position of large farmers. I am aware of that myself through having gone into an examination of certain cases. where loans were requested from the Agricultural Credit Corporation. You should not blame the Agricultural Credit Corporation for refusing to give a loan on the ground that there was no evidence that they would not have the land taken away from them before they could collect the debt, if a debt arose to the corporation. To my mind the difficulty of obtaining credit on land due to that cause is one that there is no way of getting over at present. We shall have to wait until land division has been more or less finally disposed of as far as the 1933 and 1936 Land Acts and this Bill are concerned.

I heard one Deputy speak of the question of co-operative farming in relation to land division. There again I think we ought to be honest with ourselves in this House and state fairly and squarely that this is the only agricultural country in the world which is not increasing the degree of co-operative farming in the way of co-operative marketing of produce, co-operative transport, or co-operative purchasing of raw materials, and which is also at the same time decreasing the individual size of the farms. These are facts which should be made known to the people. You should not try to disguise these facts. If the people want to have land divided, let them have it divided, but warn them that in future they will have to face the circumstance that we are compelled to export one-third of our produce and that we are at present undertaking a course of economic activity which is contrary to the experience of any other agricultural country in Northern Europe which specialises in agricultural exports. It is well that the people should have that repeated to them and that they should know it. Then, if they desire to go in for co-operation or desire to increase profits through making a certain portion of their life co-operative in character, they will evince that desire and the Government can carry out their wishes.

If you take Denmark or Holland or France, co-operation amongst the people there, even among those who are intensely individualistic, at least in France, increases every year. In

France, I suppose, the number of people in co-operative societies must total 13,000,000 out of the total population. In Denmark, the farmer makes the entire profit on the pig up to the point where it leaves the port of Copenhagen. He makes that profit for himself through co-operative enterprise. I am not suggesting a form of co-operation which involves the sharing of land. I am suggesting simply the form of co-operation which deals with the co-operative purchase of raw materials, co-operative transport, and the co-operative sale of products. I am certain that the people of the country are sufficiently intelligent, if they are made aware of the trend of European policy in agriculture, to take advantage of the lead given to them by agricultural communities in other countries and that there will be a movement for greater co-operation in agriculture. To my mind, it is a very serious thing that we are going against what is a world trend at the present time. I think that is due to the disturbed character of our history, to the fact that co-operation has been impossible to a very large degree owing to differences of political opinion, etc. We should all speak about it in public and not attempt to deny the seriousness of the fact.

In conclusion I should like to say that I hope this Bill will proceed rapidly through the House, that the Land Commission will get rapidly to work, and that we can carry out one of the most useful suggestions in the Banking Commission's report—that we should conclude that section of land division provided for in the 1933 and 1936 Acts and create a feeling of certainty in the minds of the agricultural population by so doing, and then have an examination of the whole position in the light of what we are going to do in future.

This new Land Bill shows the lack of proper consideration in connection with the previous Land Acts because year after year it seems that we have to bring in new Land Bills. I think it is time that the best brains in the country should get together and devise one decent Land Bill. This legislation which we have been pouring out for years is sickening our people. It looks as if the lawyers had a vested interest in this matter. No ordinary countryman can interpret these new Acts. I feel that I have authority to speak on land division because I am the only man in the House, perhaps, who is living on one of those divided farms. In that respect I can speak more or less with authority. I have seen land divided for the last 15 or 20 years, and I am very glad of it. However, I am not afraid to say that I am sick of the gamble that is going on now. What I want the Government to do is to take stock of what has been done. I stated on a previous occasion that 50 per cent. of the land that was divided in my constituency is not being worked. On the Cullinan estate near Trim 800 or 900 acres were divided, and I know that a number of men who got land have let it on the 11 months' system at less rent that was being paid for it originally. In some cases the new ditches that were put up have been levelled and there has not been the slightest interference by inspectors to see that these farms were worked. It is unfortunate to see land that was divided being given back to the people from whom it was taken, and to see cattle roaming on it after the State had incurred huge expenditure in dividing it. That has happened in not only one ranch but all over the county.

For that reason it is time that the Land Commission took stock of holdings that were divided there to see how they are being worked. They might find out why they are not being worked. We have some men meeting at the crossroads looking for land, on the ground that they have a big family, or that their cattle are hungry, but as soon as they get holdings they are running around trying to get men to take them on the 11 months' system. That is not fair to the country. I am also aware that decent men who got land were unable to work it for want of capital. In order to put land division on a proper footing we will have to get cheap credit for farmers. A man who gets a holding of 30 statute acres would want, at least, £100 to work it. I do not want to spoon-feed these men. I want to see them paying back the loans they get as annuities. If that type of man got a loan of £100 or £200 which he could pay back in annuities he would be an asset to the country, as he would be able to keep a couple of horses and five or six young cattle. He would be in a position to make himself economically independent. Unless some facilities are given to that type of farmer land division will be a failure. I speak with authority on this question, because I live in the midst of land that has been divided, yet I see all around me a wilderness, and far less employment being given than when the land was in the ranchers' hands. I do not want that situation to continue. I fought and suffered so that the land might be divided amongst the common people, but I say that the Government is not acting wisely in accepting a happy-go-lucky attitude.

I tell the Minister that things are not going well in connection with the migratory schemes. The Minister will ask me why the Department should give any more to Meath men when there are so many people in the West crying out for land. I say that 40 or 50 per cent. of the people who got land are not working it as they should. I do not know how some of them got into these holdings. While I have nothing against them I would not give them land if I was dividing it.

Deputy Cleary was forbidden by the Chair to reply to a speech that the Deputy made on the Minister's Estimate, and the Deputy may not now refer to the character of migrants from Mayo or the West.

I find that there are complaints in my county about farms that were given to new tenants. Houses were built but there are no gates at the entrance to these holdings. If a man is put into a farm he should at least be given some protection on it. It is not right to leave gaps in the ditches after houses have been built, and to have no gates erected. The Minister should take power under the Bill to provide piers and gates. It would not cost much money to do so. When migrants come from the West they do not come to a wilderness. They find the ditches made up and nice piers and gates erected. There should not be any discrimination against Meath people. In connection with migration, I feel that it is my duty, as it is the duty of the Fianna Fáil Deputies, to protest against migration. It is all very well for Deputy Cleary and Deputies from the West of Ireland to talk about the greed of Meath Deputies, that want everything for their own people. We do not want everything for the County Meath, but we want justice. We have just as much congestion in County Meath as there is in Mayo. Deputy Cleary said that I must not be one of those who came from the land. I want to tell the Deputy that I am one of those who sprang from the land and who worked on it. I am the son of a small farmer who reared a family of ten children on 48 acres. I am also a small farmer, and I want to tell Deputy Cleary that he would not be a lawyer if the Meath farmers had not gone down to the West of Ireland in the past to buy cattle and sheep from his father.

These personal remarks do not contribute to the debate.

I am sorry, but the Deputy made remarks about the people of Meath. My answer is that unfortunately we have by far too many cross breeds in this country. In fact the Irish are becoming a mongrel race. That is what is wrong. We were told that the first migration scheme for Rathcarne was intended to assist in the preservation of the Irish language. What has been done by that migration for the preservation of Irish? What language is spoken in Rathcarne to-day?

The Minister for Lands has nothing to do with that. That is for the Department of Education.

The Irish race is as good now as any other race.

If these people were brought there in order to preserve the Irish language, the language should be spoken there. At the present time the language is dying out there. Everyone knows that the language will die out any place where a few hundred people are put in amongst thousands of strangers. The Minister got away by saying that these people were brought up from the West to preserve the Irish language. He comes along now with a new migration scheme, but there is nothing at all about the language. The Minister on the last occasion read out the farm accounts of some of the new men who were brought to Rathcarne and Gibbstown.

The Deputy is now referring to the concluding speech that the Minister made on the Estimate. Let us hope it was the concluding speech.

Yes. The men in these colonies repudiate these statements, and say that they were either false or misleading. Five or six members of one colony say they were led to believe they would get certain advantages and markets for milk and vegetables. To-day these people are amongst the most poverty-stricken families in County Meath. They got seed potatoes to sow but they had to eat them. They are in absolute hunger and are crying out to be taken back to the West. I do not want to say that it is all sunshine in County Meath, when it is absolutely the reverse.

It is unfair for the Minister to quote four special cases. It is very easy to select them. Some of the men who came from the West of Ireland are men with British pensions of £2 a week. You may take a man like that and quote him, but he is not making the money on the land. If you are going to divide any land in my county you should make a special exception of it. I do not mean to stop dividing land there, but you must realise that it is a special county as compared with other counties in Ireland. The soil of Meath is worth preserving for one thing, the finishing off of the live stock of the rest of Ireland. Nearly all the live stock worth exporting come from the West and South to be finished in County Meath and then they are exported and we get the very highest prices. Do you want to kill that type of industry? If you do, it is unnatural and un-Irish. You do not want any special feeding stuffs beyond the bare grass of County Meath and you can export fully finished cattle, sheep or lambs and get the best prices.

In that connection I ask the Minister to make a special exception of County Meath and, when dividing land there, the Land Commission should give a better type of holding. There is no reason why they should not give 50, 60 or 70-acre holdings to men there. These places would be an asset to the country. The men in such holdings would be able to go to the West, to Athenry, Roscommon or Ballinasloe, and buy store cattle from Deputy Cleary's people and other people in the West, and give in return the money which the people there badly need in order to educate their children and make lawyers of them or, perhaps, put them in for some other occupations. We will give them the ready money. Do not, under any circumstances, divide Meath into small patches. If you divide land at all there, give the people economic farms, a decent house, a gate and a pair of piers so that they can really own it, and the stock wandering on the road will not be able to walk all over the land.

The Land Commission are far too easy in the matter of erecting houses. They gave out contracts for the erection of houses some two years ago and they are not yet built. In the meantime, the land has been let on the 11 months' system and there is no protection given to the new ditches. Perhaps one man will take 200 acres and his cattle will roam over the new farms, with the result that the new fences are destroyed in a few months. There should be an inspector left in charge of those estates during the period they are on the 11 months' system, so as to see that the ditches are protected. I am not speaking through my hat in this matter; I speak with knowledge, because I live within a few perches of these estates and I see what is happening. The work done a few years ago at great expense is being destroyed and the incoming tenant or the Land Commission will have to do that work over again.

There is also the question of water supplies for small farms. There are numbers of small farms without any water supply. That is an unnatural thing. The greatest scource of wealth to a farmer after the land is the water supply, and good fresh water means healthy stock and profits to the farmer. If you cannot get a natural water supply it is only fair that a pump should be erected on every farm. If, in a dry summer like this, a farmer has to draw water for ten or 20 cattle it means a hard day's work.

The burning problem at the moment in County Meath is the Craig Waller estate. At the last election the people in that area were predominantly Fianna Fáil. They were more or less following the Government, because they want this land divided. I warn the Minister that there is going to be serious trouble in that area if he does not hearken to the appeal of the people.

This is not an Estimate; it is a Bill, and it is certainly outside the scope of the Bill to advocate the division of particular estates.

Arising out of land division, during the last few years a great deal of greed has sprung up amongst the people. Men will almost sell their old mothers in order to get a farm. That is unfortunate and I would like the Minister, when he takes over an estate, to divide it pretty quickly. He holds estates too long in hands, with the result that people are coming night and day to Deputy Kelly, Deputy O'Reilly or myself, and perhaps also to the Minister. One will say: "Jack So-and-So should not get a farm and, if he gets one, I should have one too." We are in the most desperate position because we are blamed for everything. If the Minister takes over an estate, he should deal with it right away.

A new game has been brought into being in County Meath by the Land Commission. They start building houses and spend about three years on them. Nobody knows who is to get them. The Minister is far away from the scene and the unfortunate Deputies for the constituency do not get a wink of sleep, either night or day, with the knocking at their doors. I would rather that the Minister would give out the land to the right type of person and have done with it.

One of the principal things that concerns the ordinary farmer is free sale and fixity of tenure. I know of a few cases in County Meath. There was one very small farm owned by a widow near Navan. It was 12 statute acres in extent. She needed the cash to pay little debts. I and several others made representations so as to give her a free hand to sell. She put the land up for auction and got a buyer, but the Land Commission stepped in and said: "No, that buyer will not do; he has too much land." He had only 50 acres. Nobody else could buy the farm, unless he had a farm adjoining, so that he would be able to absorb the 12 acres. That poor lady could not sell.

I know of another small farm of 60 statute acres which a lady tried to sell, but the Land Commission stopped her from selling. She was told she could not sell to one man who wanted to buy, but she might sell to somebody else. I think it is unfair to people who are struggling along to treat them like that. You cannot sell a small farm only to a neighbour who can absorb it in his own holding. There should be more facilities given to these people who are anxious to sell, because they have to sell and it is not merely because they want to get out. I hope this is the final Land Bill, that people will be able to interpret it, and that we will not have to pay an extraordinary amount to the lawyers. I cannot understand how any such trimmings should be attached at all to these Land Bills. I think that they should be put in plain language which would be understandable to all people. I think there are hardly six people in this House, outside the lawyer "guys," who could get up and talk on the different clauses and sections in this Bill. I would ask the Minister in future to give more attention to the matter of providing land for these tenants who have at least a little capital and who can work the land, and also to provide credit facilities. To a man with a 30-acre or 40-acre farm, that would be a considerable help.

As I have adready pointed out, Meath is an exceptional county, and you cannot divide lands up there on the same scale or in the same way as you would do in the West of Ireland or in other parts of the country. If you were to divide Meath into very small holdings you would do a very grave-injury to the County Meath, and, indeed also to the West of Ireland, because Meath is very largely the gateway for our live stock, cattle, sheep and lambs to the English market. I am not speaking now from the point of view of any political Party bias, but I have lived long enough to realise facts and I know what I am talking about, and the people understand me also; and what I say is that we must preserve the nation as a whole, and not individual units of it. We must preserve the export trade of our live stock, and in order to do that we must preserve the best land that you have got in fairly large holdings. I do not mean large ranches, but if you take a fairly large farm, that is chiefly used for fattening purposes, and divide that farm into very small holdings you will do a great deal of harm, not alone to the land itself, but to the tenants among whom that land has been divided. You must bear in mind the different quality of the land in different parts of the country. In County Meath the tillage is practically all used for the feeding of the stock. I have been tilling land for the last few years and I must say, that whether the weather was wet or dry, I nearly always lost my wheat and corn crops. Year after year the corn crop rotted, whether the season was wet or dry, and the reason for that was that the land there was too rich to grow that type of crops. A farm of that kind should be devoted to finishing off cattle, sheep and lambs. It is for that reason that I ask the Minister to treat the County Meath as a separate problem, and if you put the proper type of tenant on a 70-acre, 60-acre or 40-acre farm, you will find that you will benefit the people as a whole, but if you divide up the land in County Meath into very small holdings, it will only mean that in two or three years' time the sheriff will be at the doors of these unfortunate people because they will not be able to make good.

The problem is altogether different from what exists in other parts of the country. For instance, in Carlow you have a beet factory, and the farmers there are well off because they can grow their beet, cart it into the factory and get their price for it. We cannot do that in County Meath, however, because we have no industrial undertaking connected with agriculture. We have to live by the raising of cattle, sheep and lambs, and there is no such thing there as carting our oats and barley to a market. What we do, in County Meath, is that we feed these crops to our cattle and live stock. Accordingly, as I say, ours is a special problem and different from that of any other county in Ireland, and I think the Minister should treat Meath as a separate unit.

Very many Land Acts have been passed in this country, and they were always rather timid in their operations. The first Land Acts gave a sort of security to the tenants inasmuch as they could not be evicted unless they were compensated. Later on, a further step was taken, and half the money was advanced to purchase the holdings, but it was not until the 1923 Land Act that the whole amount of the advance was given to the tenants to purchase. The 1923 Land Act, of course, was considered a most revolutionary Act, and it was the first Act to destroy this credit, that was talked about so much here to-day, by injuring security of tenure, as it is called. That Act was automatic. It was a very praiseworthy Act. It was stringent and it was considered to be revolutionary. Why was that Act revolutionary? It was revolutionary, not because the former Government wanted to have it so, but because the people had reached such a stage at that point that, if the late Government did not take steps to pass that Act, the people themselves would have continued to operate for themselves and ultimately the greatest confusion would have been caused. Be that as it may, however, it was that Act that destroyed this so-called credit, and destroyed, or at least helped to destroy, what is supposed to be security of tenure.

Many people, previous to 1921 and 1923, borrowed money with which to buy a farm. They bought the farm for £1,000, or whatever the amount was, and continued to pay the rent. They were just ordinary tenants. Automatically, they came in under the 1923 Act, and the landlord's interest was bought out—one body concerned being the bank and the other the Land Commission—the bank taking second place. That was the beginning of this so-called destruction of credit, and I think it is time people should realise that. Now, this Bill does not interfere with that position at all. It does not interfere with credit. Whatever credit remains is still there to be availed of. Naturally, the credit on land is not what it was previously, but the real reason for that is that world markets are not what they were, and, no matter what we do, credit on land will depend largely on the sale of the produce of the land. If competitors increase in that market and if the ability of these competitors to sell cheaply increases and new kinds of subsidies are highly developed in other countries, that, naturally, tends to decrease the value of land here, so far as credit is concerned, but this Bill does not add anything in that connection. It simply explains many questions that have arisen since the passing of the 1933 Land Act. It proposes to give necessary facilities to the Land Commission to obtain lands that, in many cases, ultimately would have to be sold to somebody, and the bulk of these lands, if they were not sold to the Land Commission, would be sold by the banks, and the present owners, or at least quite a number of them, would benefit very little. I believe myself, however, that, in justice, some method ought to be adopted to give something more for land that is purchased, whether that land happens to be in the hands of the bank or whether it belongs to private individuals. I believe that that is only fair and just and that in a great number of cases the prices offered are extremely low. We find in the County Meath that the farms are purchased by the Land Commission at a much cheaper rate than they are purchased in the County Mayo. After all, when we come to examine the question, there is something not so very strange about that.

For years the land in thickly populated areas in the West of Ireland and in other thickly populated areas had a higher setting value than the setting value of land in the County Meath. Therefore, the people and the population had something to do with the credit and security of the land. Hence the efforts to induce a bigger population in the County Meath are certainly going to increase the value of land in that county. I would like to state here that the Land Commission has not any very great power over the price of land. I believe that price is arrived at in other ways particularly trade competition and markets. There are appeals in these cases; if the owner of the land is not satisfied with the price offered by the Land Commission, I understand he has the right of having a value himself, the court has the right to have a valuer and so also has the Land Commission. I believe, therefore, that if a higher price can be given it will be given under these conditions except there is something to prevent that happening. The real reason in these cases is that the value of the land to-day is not what it was. Unless we can increase our population here and have a larger home market which we can control, the price of land will not increase as long as competition in the markets with which we have to compete is so intensively keen.

I believe that there should be more co-operation between the Department of Agriculture and the Land Commission in order to bring about the desirable situation of having land made more valuable. Without that co-operation it may not be possible to achieve that desirable result. In the bulk of cases that I have examined I found that there was very little co-operation for agreement or contact between these two Departments of State. That is why there has not been so much progress in land division. In fact, the value of land has been decreased by the method of division. The layout is often entirely wrong and the layout is one of the most important aspects in the value of land. A farm must be laid out properly or it goes down in value. There are a number of excellent farms in Meath that have been very improperly laid out and the result is that they cannot be properly worked. There is no use in a man coming to me and saying that such and such a tenant is no good. The difficulty lies in the laying out of the land and when it was not properly laid out it could not be properly worked.

If they have not enough experts in the Land Commission they have them in the Department of Agriculture. It is the Department of Agriculture that directs the policy. If they are to direct the policy properly it is essential that they should be in constant consultation with the Department of Lands in order to advise them as to the proper lay-out, what should be produced on the land and the type of farm to produce the particular produce that is required. It is in that way that we could raise the value of the land and increase the credit of the owners of the land. There is no use in saying, as Deputy Hughes said, that the Government were bad boys and that it was they who destroyed the credit of the land. They did not. The credit in the land was destroyed by the Land Act of 1923 as far as the banks were concerned. Many of the banks found themselves in a most awkward situation on the day that Act became law. After the passing of the Land Act of 1923 they found that the debts on the farms were irrecoverable. They refused to lend any more on land. I want to call attention to that fact because I know of many cases where debts on farms of land arose through the operation of the 1923 Land Act.

It is to the advantage of the whole House and the country that land division be made a success. As long as we are able to divide the land and do so in a normal way it is something to be extremely thankful for, considering the situation that existed in this country in 1923. At that time, the greed for land was so acute that the people took the law into their own hands. If that situation were allowed to continue the credit of land would have sunk very low. But stringent and active steps were taken. The 1923 Land Act and other Land Acts were brought in. We are discussing this Bill to-day to rectify certain mistakes that arose in these Acts. Those were mistakes that could not be anticipated at the time. These were only discovered through the decisions of the courts. This is merely a Bill to rectify those mistakes. We made mistakes that could not be foreseen. Under this Bill the division of land is going to continue and this Bill will make that work more rapid. For some time there has been a hold up in land division. The Land Commission is now trying to repopulate the areas that were depopulated. Now, as I have already pointed out, the setting value of excellent land in the County Meath was actually lower than the setting value of land in the County Mayo. It was inevitable that some stringent and powerful steps should be taken to rectify such a position as that.

Many of us have long been looking forward to this amending Act. I am extremely glad now that it has been introduced. I do not anticipate in any way that as a result of this Bill the price of land is going to be less than it has been. I, in fact, anticipate that the price paid for land by the Land Commission will increase as the result of this Bill. I believe, and I am sure the Minister in his concluding speech will explain it to the House, that the Land Commission have no power over the price of land. Other circumstances over which the Land Commission have no control are the facts that settle the value of land.

I welcome this Bill and I rise merely because I wish to make a few points with regard to some of its sections. There is a question with regard to Section 51 which refers to the power to appoint limited administrators and nominate representatives of tenants and owners in certain cases. That is a section in relation to properties and estates where improvement schemes have been held up and where the tenants are in a difficulty on the matter of getting to agree as to one main scheme or to one main head of development. I am anxious that questions such as fishery rights and certain reservations made by former landlords in regard to what we call commonages, should be dealt with in this Bill. I am now referring to people whose cases were not dealt with under the 1923 Land Act. It appears that in so far as the fishery rights were concerned, simple cases of fisheries had been leased, that the Land Commission at that period did not deal with the matter and that subsequently the former landlord sub-let these fisheries. The tenants concerned were debarred from having any rights whatever over the fisheries. I quote one case here as an example of many. This is a case in the McGillycuddy Estate, in the County Kerry, where the tenants had been agitating for 40 years with regard to the fishery rights.

At the time of the 1923 Land Act, this whole matter was not dealt with and the tenant concerned had to pay the full original rent of £17 10s. If this question of fishery rights had not been in existence, that tenant would have had to pay only £7 12s. per year. This agitation went on and, under the 1923 Act, the tenant was compelled to purchase and lost the fishery title, for which he had been fighting for 40 years. This fishery is sub-let to other people. That type of case is not being dealt with by the Land Commission. They have taken no steps, so far as I can see, to give these tenants hope of redeeming the rights which they have lost over that period of 30 or 40 years. If powers are taken under Section 41 to deal with tenants who are holding up schemes and with the extinguishment of easements, rights and tenancies, why have they not taken power to give these tenants some legal right to regain these fisheries which were taken from them throughout the years through no fault of their own and through no fault of the Government in office at the time the 1923 Act was being put through? The explanation given was that the Land Commission do not deal with that type of case once the original lease has not expired or where the lease is the property of some other person. I am simply making the point that some opportunity should be given to these people to come in under this Bill.

Another point I want to make is in regard to untenanted land. You are making provision in regard to untenanted land in the Bill and you have dealt with people who are already vested or who have purchased under the Land Purchase Acts. It is only in these circumstances that you may, by order, extinguish certain rights. We have cases in which the former landlord reserved certain areas which were subsequently described as untenanted lands. They were taken over as sporting preserves and, even where it was proven that they were vital to the interest of the tenants concerned—in other words, that they were arable land retained by the landlord for that special purpose—the Land Commission did not come in and restore these lands to the tenants concerned.

I have another case where the landlord reserved a certain area as a sporting preserve and, in the adjustment that took place, lands were taken over from the tenants concerned. This woman produced a document and a map of the year 1860 showing that the portion of land taken in that estate was vital to her holding and was described as the arable portion of her holding. This tenant was denied the right to retain that portion of her holding which was really the only arable portion of land in the district. The Land Commission were asked to go in and reacquire that land on behalf of the tenant. The landlord, who had all the legal assistance and who was very well able to make his case, convinced the Land Commission that it was not arable land and, therefore, that it could not be restored. These are types of cases which I place before the Minister in the hope that an effort will be made to right an injustice that has been going on for 30 or 40 years. The case I make is that you are taking steps to make good certain defects in previous Land Acts and to remove anomalies. In doing that, you should examine the points I have made with regard to these fishery rights and these untenanted lands. We have experience in some of these areas of lands reserved for a special purpose where, as time went on, the landlord was able to avoid every type of legislation enacted so as to deprive these tenants of valuable fishery rights, in one case, and of sporting rights, in the other.

In Section 24, reference is made to commonages and owners in common. That question of commonages has been dealt with over and over again, but we are debarred from making our case since it is provided in the Bill that the only commonages to be dealt with will be those where there are owners in common. We have several cases in Kerry where the former landlord reserved areas as commonages. They were never given over to the Land Commission at any period and they are a source of agitation and trouble throughout the years particularly in regard to water-rights and privileges. There, again, I do not see why, if the Land Commission take power to go in and compel the ordinary tenant to sign certain agreements or to exclude a tenant who will not sign, they should not come in in a case like this and deal with the landlord who has, for some special motive, deprived these people of these rights. We have two or three cases of this kind in Kerry and I think we have made representations to the Department of Lands concerning them. In so far as water-rights are concerned, these commonages are vital to the tenants residing adjacent to them. I should like the Minister to consider that question. Even though I notice here that power is taken in Section 53 to deal with that type of case, still the fact remains that you have only dealt with commonages over which the Land Commission has already some jurisdiction. You have not indicated your desire to deal with commonages which were reserved under the previous Purchase Acts. I should like the Minister when replying to clarify the position so far as these cases are concerned.

I want to say a few words about this Bill. I want in the first place to indicate to the House that this Bill does two things. The first thing it does is to put an end for ever to fixity of tenure. I hope Deputies who are supporting the Bill will, some time in the future, congratulate themselves on having done that. The second thing the Bill does is to hand over complete power and control over the land of this country to the Land Commission. I hope the Deputies who are supporting a Bill which does these two things and who are so enthusiastically welcoming it, will be as enthusiastic about it five or ten years hence. I wonder did it ever occur to them, when they were welcoming it this evening, to consider what the history of the land question in this country was? Did it ever strike them to consider the sacrifices which their fathers and grandfathers made to secure fixity of tenure which they are so jubilantly sacrificing this evening in order to bring land administration in this country into the cesspool of politics so that the tenants' tenure will depend on the will of the dominant Party in this country irrespective of who they are? I wonder when they were sacrificing this asset, did they consider what asset they were going to put in its place so that the people who are engaged in agriculture will be able to find capital to put into their farms and keep them going? The dominant Party to-day passes out to-morrow and some other Party will succeed them and whatever fad they may adopt, in regard to land policy, will be put into operation so that you will have this vicious circle still going on. I wonder did it ever occur to the supporters of this Bill whether their fathers and grandfathers were wise in putting fixity of tenure as the first plank in their policy? Had they consciously or unconsciously a philosophy behind them when they pursued that policy and achieved that end? Did they go out recklessly to achieve that end? Had they a philosophy? Of course they obviously had a philosophy and they put that philosophy into practical effect.

Here we have the representatives of the State jubilantly gathered together this evening welcoming a Bill to impose a new form of absolute landlordism on the tenant farmers of this country. Let us not forget that is what we are doing, whether it be right or wrong. I am not going to pass any judgment on that now. I wonder what those who are gone would think if they could occupy the gallery this evening and look down upon this House and what it is doing. What is to be the future of this country? What hope is there of developing and making good the land when this Bill becomes law? What security is there for any man or woman taking up a farm in any part of this country when this Bill becomes law? What future is there for themselves and their families when, having put the best of their years into the land, their whole title may be swept away at some future date. Was not that the whole policy behind the agrarian trouble in this country, to place the people definitely and inseparably on the soil of the country? That was the philosophy behind the people who founded the Land League in this country. What inspired it? The conduct of the landlords towards them. Irrespective of the fate that they knew awaited them, land-holders and their families brought out picks and shovels and reclaimed the bogs of the country. When the landlord came along, in August and September, to shoot game over the sporting parts of the estate, he saw the reclamation work that had been done and he doubled and trebled their rents, yet they defied all that and, with their imperishable love for the land, they launched the agrarian campaign. The two things, the fight for fixity of tenure and the reclamation of the land, went hand in hand. Many of them did not wait until land reform was achieved. They proceeded contemporaneously with the fight for fixity of tenure to reclaim the land and at the time when fixity of tenure was secured they had reclaimed a very considerable amount of land. Now the fact that this Bill abolishes their security of tenure means that there will be in future no incentive for them to put their best into the land.

I wonder does the Minister believe himself that he is doing a wise thing to-day or is he sufficiently strong to resist the political influences that are driving him like a ship before a storm? Let us be clear about what we are doing. There are some of us here past the hey-day of our lives but we are yet young enough to live to regret what we are doing here this evening. I am as certain of that as I stand here this evening and I am here to protest against the passage of this Bill. There is the excuse trotted out by those supporting the Bill that its object is to place people on the land. That is crystallised in the tirade we had from Deputy Norton who completely ignored the causes of depopulation in this country. It is what is in this Bill, and what was in the Land Act of 1933, that was responsible for driving the young men and women off the land. Deputies who are acquainted with conditions in rural Ireland know that the son who should occupy the farm, get married and remain on it, has done so only because of the persuasion brought to bear on him by his neighbours. The entreaties of his father and mother would not be sufficient to hold him because he is so disgusted with the position in which he finds himself. But, by sheer force, some friend or neighbour may prevail on him to remain. That situation has been brought about by two converging policies pursued by the Government. Under the first the Government destroyed whatever prosperity the people were able to get from producing out of the land, as well as the capital assets which the farmer had in cash and in stock. Finally, under this Bill, the Government are destroying the security which the farmer had to get credit. Will the Minister tell us whether the Government, contemporaneously with what they are proposing in this Bill, are prepared to set up machinery to finance the farmers and supply them with credit. The Minister need not say that he will do it. I do not care whether he does or not.

If this country is so insane as to give the Government a mandate for the policy it is pursuing in this Bill, then I think it will live to regret the day that it did that. I do not believe that the tenant farmers of Ireland, who fought and made sacrifices for the benefits they enjoyed and for the rights which are being taken from them under this Bill, have a glimmer of what is being done in this measure. Or is it that the tenant farmers have reached such a pitch of pessimism that they are indifferent as to what happens to them in the future: that they say to themselves "Very well, we are destroyed anyway; the fruits of all that we fought for and achieved in the past are being destroyed, and it does not matter now what happens." If that is their attitude, it is a black day for Ireland.

I do not complain at all, and never did, about the Land Commission taking power to resume untenanted land. Attempts have been made on all sides of the House during the past two days to try and fence on this question: to segregate and create, as it were, areas and groups of tenancies that should be protected with regard to fixity of tenure. Let me warn the House that the moment you touch the edifice, the moment that you pull one brick out of it, then ultimately the entire edifice will come down. There are things happening in the world to-day, and you have people who seem to think that they are the growth of yesterday. They wonder how those things happen, whereas, in fact, they are the sort of things that happened three centuries ago and, through various stages, they have come now to their logical conclusion. The world has stood aghast during the last few years, for example, at the conduct of the Totalitarian States, but people do not appreciate what brought about that particular development. It is a development that came about when the world moved away from Christianity.

And the Deputy is moving a long way from the Bill before the House.

I am, and this House is moving very far away indeed from the principles of those who secured for the people the rights that are being destroyed under this Bill. You are destroying under it the peasantry of Ireland, and putting an end to the security they had on their land. I do not intend to say more on that because every section of this Bill will have to be considered very fully on the Committee Stage. Somebody has spoken about the explanatory memorandum that has been circulated. This is a bland document, a sugar-coated pill with the vitriol inside. Yet it is well worth reading. It says:

"The Land Bill is intended primarily to correct certain defects in the existing land code which have come to notice in the practice of land purchase operations. Some legal objections arising therefrom have been upheld by the courts...."

That is a shocking thing for the courts to do. I wonder what the courts are for. It goes on:—

"It is necessary, therefore, to restate clearly and put beyond doubt the powers which were intended to be given to the Land Commission by previous legislation, and particularly by the Land Acts of 1933 and 1936."

I am not a judge at all, but I think it is obvious from the language of the sections in respect of which decisions were asked that the decisions were correct. Of course, when the measures referred to were brought into this House the Minister in charge would not listen to anybody. This was not a deliberative Assembly. The Minister walked in with his proposals and used the majority that he has here to carry them through. He would not listen to anybody who attempted to put forward rational suggestions intended to help. Any Deputy who did that was told that he was sabotaging the Government. I am very glad that the courts put their foot on that sort of thing. The decisions involved are quite simple. The language in the sections is quite plain. The memorandum goes on to say:—

"The most important provision is contained in clause 14, which determines the quorum of the commissioners for the exercise of the powers of the Land Commission.... Next in importance is clause 39 of the Bill, which restates the law and the procedure in regard to the resumption of holdings of tenanted land by the Land Commission for the purposes of distribution."

The Deputy should remember that the explanatory memorandum was supplied to Deputies at the request of the House, and I do not think it is consonant with proper procedure to read it through and paraphrase a memorandum so supplied.

I am only referring to two clauses. This memorandum would make it appear that this Bill is a perfectly innocent thing. I am suggesting that it is not. With regard to the concluding portion of the last extract I read, the meaning of it is quite clear. It is, that in future the Land Commission will hold absolute control over all the land in this country tenanted and untenanted. I know, of course, that we have been assured that nothing wild will be done—not until after the Bill has been got through. But when the Minister gets the Bill through and takes it across to Merrion Street the position in the future will be that, as regards anything done under it, there will be no right of appeal, so that the destiny of the farmers of Ireland is to be placed in the hands of those in authority in Merrion Street. Under this Bill—I do not know whether or not that will be so in its final form— there will be no appeal except with the permission of the appeal commissioners. They can, of course, state a case. They have the right to do it. If they have the right to do it, why should not the other parties to any proceedings have the right? Has the Minister got so careful about the financial interests of litigants that he will not let them spend their money? If they are prepared to spend their money, or—whether they have any money or not—if they think they have a right, why should they not have an opportunity to go further and get that right determined? Do not these two decisions in the Potterton and Maher cases show that it is only just that persons should have a right of appeal to a higher tribunal? In future, there will be no case stated for any court other than the appeal tribunal, except with the permission of the appeal tribunal. Why is that done? What logical basis is there for it? If it suits the appeal tribunal to state a case for the opinion of the court, they will state a case; if not, there will be no appeal to any court outside the appeal tribunal.

In regard to the amendment of lists, power is given, for example, in this Bill that on the original amendment it will not be necessary to serve notice. It never occurred to the Minister that that is a denial of natural justice. Is he not aware that there is a decision by the Supreme Court in this State that, where the civil law contravenes the natural law, the civil law is ultra vires, and the natural law will prevail. This House has no right to legislate to give power to any Minister to do something which contravenes the natural law. The Minister has been very much upset and the whole work of the Land Commission has been held up because the courts gave a decision, on a direct question from them, that the signature of all the Commissioners was necessary for any act they did. Did not anybody in the Department inform the Minister that in 1935 a case went to the Supreme Court in which he was semi-involved, and in which it was determined that an act of the Commissioners meant an act of them all. Apparently they were terribly shocked when this later case came along. But there was a decision in 1935—I think it was the case of the Minister for Industry and Commerce v. Sweeney—that where an act of the Commissioners was involved, either judicially or otherwise, it involved an act of them all, and not of any one, two or three of them. They had that before them, but apparently they completely overlooked it. The section of the 1936 Act refers to the act of the Commissioners. It never once refers, either in the section or any of the subsections, to the act of a Commissioner, or any number of Commissioners. Those two later decisions, so far as I can see, were uncalled for. It was obvious from the language of the section that it involved all the Commissioners. Certainly that is what the section intended. The Minister may have meant something else, but he should have said so.

This whole thing strikes me as a terrible perversion of the entire system of land tenure in this country. I am not going to accept the suggestion that those who fought for and won the land rights of this country were wrong. I believe they were right. I am convinced they were right and I believe that, when this Bill is in operation, time will prove that they were right. Of course there is a plea for landless men, for congests. It has been said thousands of times, and is still being repeated again and again, that there is not enough land in this country for all the landless men. We hear a lot about providing land for landless men, but the people who are on the land are running away from it. In the first three months of this year, 1,700 young people left the land; they did not leave the towns—a few of them may have, but in the main they left the land. Why, then, do we hear such wailing about putting people on the land, when the people who are on the land are running away from it? In the last few years about 150,000 people have left the land—left it in despair. There is no one left on the land now except those of such an age that, in a few years, they will not be able to keep the land in any sort of fertility. We hear about the congested areas in the Gaeltacht. Every young man and woman in the Gaeltacht is flying from it. Everybody in this House or outside it who knows anything about the country knows that no matter what we do in this House, and no matter what Government is in office, it must be admitted that there is not enough land to go round. We have heard here about places where there are farms of 400 or 500 acres. How many are there? Those people have not read the evidence given by Mr. Deegan before the Banking Commission. If they had, they would not talk like that. We will have something to say on this Bill on the Committee Stage. So far as I am concerned, I oppose it, because it involves two things which I have always opposed and will oppose.

Mr. Broderick

Whatever views one may hold on this Bill, once the question of security of tenure is raised I think in the national interests and in order to restore the credit of the country, the appeal made by Deputy Dillon in opening the debate on this question should be listened to in the House, and that that essential point should be agreed on by the House. But it was not to go into the merits of the Bill that I rose. The Bill has been strongly condemned, and has been equally vigorously supported. The sensible line to take is that the Bill is going to pass, having regard to the Government's majority; and what I am about to say is with a view to the consideration of essential amendments. There is a question involved which concerns the country very much, and particularly the portion of it from which I come. It is the question of submerged land—land which is inundated with water. Deputies on the opposite side who represent the same constituency as I do will support my view on this matter. We have lands there which have been submerged for four years. I know one farm of a reinstated tenant, 40 acres of which have been submerged for four years; the entire holding is 49 acres. But the annuities are still due. I am aware that the Land Commission, by way of concession, can give relief in those cases, but it ought not to be a concession. It ought not to be a question of patronage —it ought to be a question of right. In Section 54 of this Bill the Minister makes provision for land covered by sand which is no longer of use for agricultural purposes. I would suggest to the Minister that he should bring in an amendment, or accept an amendment tabled by me, that where land covered by water has been relieved by the revisor from local rates—which in itself is proof that it ought not to be liable for the payment of an annuity—it should automatically be relieved from that payment. The people concerned are in a position of uncertainty, and the annuities on these submerged lands are accumulating. It is bad enough to have their means of livelihood destroyed, but to have the annuities mounting up is also a very serious matter. The Land Commission has dealt reasonably, if you like, generously, with most of these cases, but they have dealt with them, if I may put it that way, on a sympathetic basis. Some people have been relieved of portion of their annuities, but I submit that they should be relieved of these annuities as a matter of right. It is not a question of sympathy. I am asking that they should be relieved of their annuities when the revisor gives his certificate that they are not liable for local rates. I would much prefer if the Minister would bring in an amendment for that purpose rather than I should table one. That would be only doing elementary justice to the people whose means of livelihood is taken from them by the flooding of their land.

The one matter which I intended raising on this Bill has just been mentioned by my friend Deputy Broderick, and I wish to support him in asking the Minister to bring in an amendment to deal with land which has been flooded for a number of years. In my constituency the best portion of the land on a number of farms has been under water for four or five years, and yet these people are expected to pay annuities on this land. I am sure the Minister will realise the injustice of that. Provision is being made in the Bill for dealing with land which is covered with sand and other matters of that kind, and I think that land which is covered with water should also be dealt with. Some few years ago the Land Commission divided an estate on the banks of the Suir. Portion of that estate has been flooded and the tenants have not derived any benefit from the flooded portion, although they are expected to pay their annuities. I hope the Minister will look into this matter and bring forward an amendment to deal with it, which I am sure will have the support of all sections of the House, as I am sure this grievance is not confined to Waterford, but must extend to other counties. I am glad to be able to support this Bill and I know it will be welcomed throughout the country, particularly in counties where very little land has been divided up to the present. I hope that when the Bill becomes law no time will be lost by the Land Commission in expediting the division of land.

So far as I can see the reason for the introduction of this Bill is, in the main, that certain flaws have been found in Acts previously passed. Of course, Acts of Parliament are framed by the most eminent lawyers, but still some other lawyer often finds a loophole in an Act and takes advantage of it. The result is that this Bill had to be introduced to enable the Land Commission to proceed with the acquisition and division of many of the estates throughout the Twenty-Six Counties. Nobody can quarrel with that, because it would be impossible for the Land Commission to carry out their duties effectively unless they had these powers.

Sometimes I think there is a good deal of what one would call piffle spoken about land division in this country. So much so that I often wonder when the mythical millions of acres will be divided, or whether we shall ever arrive at the time when the work of land division will be near an end. Judging by the views expressed by some Deputies they would like to have a repetition of land division day after day, week after week, and year after year. They gave me the impression anyhow that to make a man prosperous all that is necessary is to give him a farm of land. Once he has acquired the land they seem to think that it is the easiest thing in the world for him to make a living. In my opinion they are leaving out of their calculation a most important factor, not alone in connection with the successful working of land, but with the successful working of any enterprise, and that is the human factor. There are thousands of small farmers in this country who are making a decent living and supporting large families on farms of from ten to 15 acres. It is very hard to reconcile that with the proposition put forward by several Deputies, especially Deputy Norton, that it is impossible to make a living on a farm of less than 30 acres. Incidentally I might remark that Deputy Norton also spoke about the necessity of putting more people on the land. I am not an authority on land, but I have always heard it stated that the best form of education is by observation. If the Land Commission carried out the suggestion made by Deputy Norton, I hold that no person would get land except those who have uneconomic holdings. These are small farmers, of which there are thousands in this country. It would exhaust all the available estates, as Deputy Norton stated, to make each of these 30-acre farms. I do not know what state the country would be in if that suggestion were put into practice. A suggestion made by several Deputies was that the land should be worked in what they called "the national interest." That is a great slogan recently,—"the national interest." I suppose they will say that the future of this country depends on working land in what they call "the national interest." I should like to put this question to Deputies: "Who is to determine, or what authority will be set up to decide whether land is being worked in the national interest or not?" I admit that there can be good arguments advanced in support of the contention that people who have land and let it should be deprived of it. Deputies who advocate that policy are assuming that land taken for conacre is being wasted. I wonder has it ever occurred to these Deputies to inquire what the position of thousands of small farmers would be if no land was available for conacre.

Most small farmers would find it almost impossible to live if land was not available in their localities to be taken for a year or on the 11 months' system. They do not take that land to waste it. They work it. I could advocate that by taking that land and producing crops, they are working in the national interest, and also in the interest of their families. While I do not agree that people who got farms from the Land Commission should be allowed to let them on the 11 months' system, or who do not till them as they are supposed to, still it is wrong to suggest that the land would be wasted, or that the people who take it are not working in the national interest. I stated that I was afraid there had been discrimination and differentiation exercised by the Land Commission in regard to that type of person. Sometimes you will see the claims of these people dealt with expeditiously and fairly in certain counties, while, as Deputy Kelly stated, many allottees in County Meath who got land from the Land Commission are letting it on the 11 months' system for years. Deputy Kelly stated that these people were not in a position to till the land. Why are these people so anxious to look for land if they do not intend to till it? When will they till it? I think the time has arrived when some examination should be made to see whether the money spent by the Land Commission on the acquisition of land has given proper results.

Some Deputies thought that when ranches are acquired they should be divided and the owners hunted away. I am not one who preaches class distinction. That comes generally from people who draw an unfortunate dividing line between people who own farms that are known as ranches and ordinary farms. It should be remembered that most of the income we derive from our exports, and which is absolutely necessary if we are to pay for imports, comes from the sale of cattle raised on grass land. That is part of our agricultural economy. No matter how people disagree with that position, it is bound to remain a very important factor in our whole agricultural economy, because from the statistics issued by the Department of Agriculture, and that appear in the daily papers, it can be said that the value of our exports have considerably increased as a result of the increased number of cattle we are exporting to the British market. I am not agitating for ranching, but I want to discuss this question in an impartial way. I have no very fixed ideas about it one way or another. It is a matter of opinion whether many of those who are referred to as ranchers are not giving as much or more employment on a given number of acres as another type of farmer with the same number of acres gives through the medium of tillage. It is a debatable point. Some people hold that those who go in for grazing and raising cattle, and especially for stall feeding during the winter months, give as much if not more employment as those who go in extensively for tillage. I might say, without departing from the question under consideration, that the experience of the last few years, notwithstanding the extensive campaign for increased tillage, has shown that there are less people on the land to-day than five or six years ago.

Deputies need not think that by making certain suggestions they are going to make things happy for farmers. The task is a very difficult one. I was very sorry to hear the flippant remarks that were made by certain Deputies about the Banking Commission. I wish to remind Deputies on the Fianna Fáil Benches that that Commission was set up by the Executive of their own Government and that it has cost this country something like £8,000. I am sure all Deputies agree that the members of the Executive Council in the discharge of their duties were not so foolish as not to see that they got value for their money by getting the best men. I think they did get good men for that commission, and it does not speak well, and makes one despair of the future, to hear responsible Deputies speaking of the report of that commission as if it were waste paper. Everyone who wants to build a house knows that a carpenter or a bricklayer must be consulted, and in the case of ironwork an engineer, a blacksmith or a fitter. In the same way, if a person wants to know anything about economics or finance he will go to a trained man. If that is not accepted there is an end to all progress. While I may not accept everything that appears in the report of the Banking Commission as sacrosanct, I have sufficient common sense to know that the members of that commission did their job to the best of their ability. They had experience, I believe, of many countries and of finance, and they made the report for what it was worth. As the report states, it is a question whether the people of this country are trying to live beyond their means. That was the position in a nutshell. I do not think it is right that Deputies should belittle a commission which was set up by their own Government and which cost this State something like £8,000.

In reference to the Land Commission taking certain powers under this Bill, there is one section to which I wish to refer. Deputy Broderick mentioned certain lands that are under water, and that are affected by sand being blown on to them. I should like to ask the Minister whether that section will cover lands that are subject to what is known as coast erosion. There is land along the East coast, down the Cooley peninsula, and I know that when I was a boy at least 400 yards out from where you can walk now there was a road, and the farmers told me that the people used it for their horses and carts when they were carting sea wrack. The sea has made such inroads on that part of the coast that acres and acres of land have been inundated. The result is that the people along that area are paying annuities still on the land which has been taken over by the sea. I would like to know whether this section will cover these lands adjoining the sea coast, and if not, perhaps the Minister will consider whether it would be advisable to submit an amendment on the Committee Stage to meet that particular point. My attention was drawn to the matter by many of the people whose lands adjoin the sea. They are paying annuities on land that does not exist. At one time it was arable land, but to-day it has disappeared through the causes I have mentioned.

I noticed during the debate that the members on the opposite benches tried to make a point that there is no fixity of tenure as far as the land of the farmers is concerned and, furthermore, that there is no security in land. I think the answer to the first point is found in the fact that no speaker named a specific case where a farmer who husbanded his land in a fair manner was served with a resumption order or an acquisition order by the Land Commission. As regards the second point, about the land being security for loans, members of the Opposition dealing with that matter were careful not to tell the House the exact year in which land was refused as security for a loan by the banks.

Members on the Government as well as on the Opposition Benches are well aware of the large borrowings from the banks by farmers during the boom years, in the days of the Great War and a few years afterwards. They are all aware of the outery raised in the country with regard to what were called frozen loans. They know as well as I do that if land is not readily acceptable to-day as security for loans to farmers, it is because of the blunders that bankers made in the boom years, lending vast sums to farmers and, when the depression came, the farmers were not able to pay. The banks were then faced with a problem which they found it difficult to solve, trying to get back the loans they had given. That is the position.

I am surprised at the attitude of some Deputies. One Deputy yesterday spoke very bitterly against the principle of land division. I am alluding to Deputy Dillon. I have read a report of a speech that Deputy Dillon made during the recent by-election. He stated then that he did not believe in a social system that allowed a man to have a motor car, wealth and comfort, while the children of his neighbours were hungry. He further stated that the charge on the national income of any Christian State should be provisioned to secure that children would get the nourishment that would preserve them against malnutrition and ill-health. Was he not giving expression to the Fianna Fáil policy when he said that?

He stated that at a by-election in the City of Dublin, but what is to apply to the electors and the people of Dublin generally was not meant, apparently, to apply to the small holders down the country. One would imagine that they had no children to provide for, that they were living in the lap of luxury, that there were not large land owners who had no regard for the maintenance or the proper working of their farms and no regard for the moral obligation on anybody who has wealth, namely, that what we have is God-given and that we should do with our wealth and our business something to help our fellow-creatures to live. The Deputy made that speech last evening, at a time when it was too late for the electors of Dublin South to hear him.

You have heard them, if they did not hear you.

There was some inconsistency in the Deputy's attitude in that he did not apply that system which he advocated so loudly and praised so much, to other portions of the country; that he did not accept it as a principle for land division as well. Further, not alone did he act contrary to that principle to which he has given expression, but he called the men in the country who stood for that principle, a lot of grabbers. We must remember that any citizen of the State who legally advocates the policy of the Government of the day should not be open to attacks of that kind. If people down the country send in reports that there are congests in certain areas, and that in the midst of those areas there is land going derelict and available for distribution, it is very unfair that these people should be attacked by men who are privileged in this House.

There are some suggestions I should like to make to the Minister in relation to a few sections. One has reference to Section 24, which is meant to deal with the condition of holdings held in commonage. I would like to draw the Minister's attention to the fact that there are still certain holdings in connection with which there is but one receivable order for two names. It may happen that the amount that these people pay individually is not equal. Each has his apportioned share to pay. It came to my knowledge that you might have the case of one man inclined to pay his portion and the other man disinclined to pay his share. That leaves both of them in the position that the Land Commission may try to recover the amount, and it is a case where the innocent may suffer with the guilty. I would like the Minister to attend to cases of that sort and try to get that bone of contention removed somewhat in the same manner as he proposes to deal with the commonages.

In regard to Section 52, dealing with the power to make new water-courses and drains, I should like to suggest that these powers should be extended to cover the erection and maintenance of embankments to prevent flooding, as well as the provision of new water-courses and drains. These are two suggestions that I have to make.

I welcome this Bill, and I think it was long overdue, but I should also like to urge on the Minister that, when this Bill becomes law, men whose holdings were listed by the Land Commission for acquisition, and who shoved them over to somebody else in the meantime while this legislation was pending, should not be allowed to escape from the full effects of this Bill, and I trust they will not be allowed to escape. Furthermore, when this Bill becomes law, I hope that the County Cork, and particularly the constituency of North Cork, will have a lot more land division than has been the case in the past.

Practically every Deputy who spoke on this Bill said that this was not a Second Reading Bill, but they made it one themselves. I could not possibly reply to all the Committee Stage points that were raised here, such as those raised by Deputies Meaney and Broderick, and other Deputies. However, as Deputy Broderick has remained in the House, I shall deal with the point he made. There is power already, under Section 37 of the 1933 Act, to deal with these submerged lands, but the point is that the Land Commission are not going to use it until somebody else would decide when the land ought to be relieved from annuities. What Deputy Broderick wants is that we should accept the certificate of the County Council.

Mr. Broderick

No, the certificate of the reviser.

Mr. Boland

At any rate, the power is there already, and if the Land Commission is satisfied that the land is permanently submerged, then the land annuities can be remitted. The same applies to coast erosion, to which Deputy Coburn referred, in cases where the land has been washed away.

Mr. Broderick

Perhaps I might be allowed to intervene for a moment. My point is that I think it places the Land Commission in a very awkward position to leave the Land Commission as the sole arbitrator in these cases. It leaves them open to the implication of patronage. If an independent official comes in, as is the case in connection with the local rates—a reviser, a Government official, who is above reproach or, in any case, above suspicion and certifies that the land is not able to bear its liabilities to the local authority, I think that that would relieve the Land Commission from any ugly implications that might be made. I am not making any implication, but I say that that leaves the Land Commission open to such implication.

Mr. Boland

Well, the Land Commission feel that they are above reproach in these matters, and I am certain that where there is permanent coast erosion or permanent flooding, these things are taken into consideration and remission is given. Of course, in some cases there is temporary flooding, and there are some cases where people claim that, because of summer flooding, they should be granted the same relief as in the case of total submersion. That is different from the case of permanent submersion. Deputy Dillon, of course, came along with his usual charge that we were destroying the security of the farmers and destroying their credit, and spoke as if fixity of tenure, free sale, and so on, were no longer there.

And Deputy Cleary agreed with me.

Mr. Boland

He may have agreed with the Deputy in some cases but the point is that where people are making any attempt to work their farms, and especially where they are living upon them, there has been no case where they have been interfered with; and the promise that was made by the Minister for Lands during the passage of the 1933 Act was carried out both in the spirit and in the letter. Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney opened the debate by saying that that promise had been entirely ignored and broken. I challenge any Deputy here to give any particular case where any farmer who had made any attempt to work his land properly—any residential farmer—had been interfered with. There has not been one case. Of course, there have been all sorts of general charges made by Deputies, but there has not been one definite statement of even one particular case, and I am satisfied that there has not been one.

What about the Gerrard estate in County Meath, where 53 men were employed?

Mr. Boland

Is it the Gerrard estate to which the Deputy is referring?

Mr. Boland

As far as I understand, that was offered by the owner.

The balance of it was.

Mr. Boland

I understand that the estate was offered by the owner. However, I do say that the point that practically all the speakers of the Opposition tried to make here, to the effect that we are interfering with the hard-working farmer—the man to whom Deputy Gorey referred as the man who has put his sweat into his farm—is a charge that is going to do, and has already done, great damage to this country; and, if continued, it will do still more damage. There was never the slightest fear at any time that a man of that type would be interfered with. He has not been interfered with, and no Government will interfere with him except to help him. Another Department, the Department of Agriculture, is there for the purpose of encouraging such farmers and helping them to get on. Of course, there has been a lot of talk here about this question of credit. Everybody here knows that credit has not been influenced to anything like the extent that has been alleged here, or even, I should say, to any extent at all, by the operations of the Land Commission. Everybody knows that, and Deputy Dillon knows it quite well. Deputies on this side of the House have dealt with that question quite correctly, and they were able to trace it back to the time—and every one of you over there knows it—when money was advanced and afterwards there was a big fall in prices, and the agricultural depression that set in after the Great War. Prices fell, and the farmers, unfortunately, were not able to pay the debts they had incurred, but it was not due to the operations of the Land Commission, and Deputies all know that.

This Bill is a Committee Bill. It was brought in because the intentions of the Oireachtas, apparently, were not being carried out with regard to the two Acts we did pass. It was the intention of the Oireachtas that the practice that had obtained in the matter of appointing a quorum of Commissioners should continue. I admit that on reading that section it does not appear to be that way, but one would have thought that where there were two Commissioners debarred by reason of the fact that they were Appeal Commissioners, at least they would not be included in this, but the judge ruled otherwise, and accordingly we had to bring in this Bill to make that matter right, amongst other things. There was also the conflict between Section 11 and Section 31 of the Act of 1933. The Judicial Commissioner held that, as there was a conflict between these two sections, one of them should prevail, and since it was the intention of the Oireachtas that Section 31 should prevail, we are bringing in this Bill to ensure that it will. All the other provisions of the Bill, as everyone will see, are designed to deal with difficulties that have arisen and to make provision for the working of the Land Commission and to help them in their work.

Questions have been raised here, such as that raised by Deputy Meaney about commonages. That brings me to a suggestion made by Deputy Dillon during the Estimate debate, and raised again by Deputy Norton; and that is the question of trying an experiment in co-operative farming. I myself would love to see it succeed, but I am very sorry to say that the experience of the Land Commission has been that it simply has not worked. In this Bill we are actually taking power to divide land held in common. Deputy Meaney referred to a case where there were only two people who held land under the one receivable order, but I know of another case, in my own constituency, where there are about ten people holding land under the one receivable order. One of these people will not pay. The other nine people always want to pay, but if they pay there is something short every time, and we can get nothing done, although every effort has been made by all sorts of influential people to try to get that one person to fall in line. It has not succeeded, however. I myself think it is a great pity that agricultural co-operation should not have got on better than it has in this country.

There would be the other difficulty also.

Mr. Boland

Unfortunately, we are individualists in this country. I am one myself, and I think everyone here insists on his own point of view. Until we change that I am afraid we will not achieve co-operation. Maybe I am too pessimistic. In this particular Bill we are providing for the partitioning of those commons and also dealing with the remains of an old problem that was left over from the 1927 Act, where the committees bought land in 1917 up to 1920. There was one case that we knew of, in which several Deputies are interested. They asked us to try and deal with that. There was a case where those people thought that their purchase had taken place before the date set out in Section 42 of the 1927 Act. As a matter of fact, that was not so. They really could have come in. That section was repealed by the 1936 Act, and we are providing time for those people—a three months' period—to apply again. We are doing things of that sort. Unfortunately, the attempt at co-operation so far has not been successful. I, personally, regret it very much, because, like Deputies Dillon, Norton and others here, I would like to see some of these things succeeding. I do hope that a spirit of co-operation will be shown amongst farmers, because I believe something like that will be necessary. I do not mean holding in common, but I mean co-operative selling and buying, and other things that have been suggested here. That, of course, has nothing to do with this Bill at all, but it was mentioned. In the Bill itself we are making provision for dissolving attempts that had been made to work co-operatively.

I think the debate has centred around the statement that we were interfering with the fixity of tenure of hard-working tenant farmers. We have never done any such thing. There is a type of landholder with whose security we certainly are interfering and with which we intend to interfere. If Deputy Dillon by "free sale" means that we are to revert to the position where, say, a wealthy merchant in a town can buy up any land he likes, maybe land owned by people who got into debt with that merchant—as we all know has happened—or with professional people or wealthy people, and that they should be allowed to buy land to any extent they like and then allow the land to revert to the ownership of one or two people and not be properly worked, this Government will not stand for it and I do not think any government that is likely to be elected would stand for it.

The Minister is a reasonable man.

Mr. Boland

I hope so.

And we can differ in good faith but there is no use in misunderstanding one another. The problem I adverted to there is a problem well-known to the Minister's own officials and to his colleagues, that is if a man bona fide puts up his farm for sale, meaning to marry his daughter into another home, and go into the town and retire from farming, almost invariably there is a request sent to the Land Commission to go down and inspect it, and the inspector goes down. The fact that that happens results in the sale being boycotted because although I might know and the Minister might know that the Land Commission would never recommend acquisition of that land, the fact of the inspector going on the land frightens people off bidding for the land.

Mr. Boland

I would like to deal with that very point. Deputy Dillon has done me the credit of saying I am reasonable. I hope I am, and I say that Deputy Dillon himself ought to try and be fair. In dealing with that question he compares most unfavourably with Deputy MacEoin because Deputy Dillon said that the people who started these agitations, who got these "grabbers," as he called them, to try and grab the property of these people, were the Fianna Fáil Cumann. Deputy MacEoin said that he was not going to say that because he knew it was not the case because Fine Gael as well as Fianna Fáil were concerned in these matters. I think Deputy Dillon knows that that is the case, too; that it is not a political organisation; that it is something that happens which we cannot help. The Land Commission is not responsible for it. It is a problem that has to be tackled and the people have got to be educated by all parties. I do not think it is serving any useful purpose for Deputy Dillon to insist that it is confined to our Party. I know it does happen that farms do come in and that farms are sold at less than their market value without the Land Commission interfering.

The Land Commission does not interfere in these cases unless it may happen that the people try to defeat the Land Commission. Then they would interfere, but in any ordinary sale they have not done it. I admit that there is agitation, but if Deputies would be fair and admit that the agitation is not confined to one Party we may get somewhere. We may get some public spirit on this question. If that is not what Deputy Dillon meant by "free sale", I misunderstood him. I thought he meant that we should allow anyone to buy as much land as he liked. It would be a great thing if this House were in agreement that the person who works his land properly, and who gives a reasonable amount of employment, has not been and will not be interfered with. As far as the acreage is concerned, that is a question which does not arise—it is just a matter of how he works the land. If he is making good use of a very big farm he will be left with it.

Even a farm of 600 acres?

Mr. Boland

If he were making proper use of it and doing what would be for the good of the agricultural economy of the country, he certainly would. As far as I would be concerned, anyway, I would say he ought to be left with it.

Even if he had a farm of 600 acres?

Mr. Boland

I think it would be better not to go to limits, but I would say that a big farm which would be well worked, which would be a model to the district, in which a man could keep pedigree stock which would help his small neighbours, should not be interfered with. The Land Commission has always approached the problem from that point of view. There is no doubt whatever about it. There is no intention of parcelling the country up into small farms of 30 acres. The new farms we are giving out are only that size, but these well-worked farms are going to be left there and not interfered with.

That is a very important pronouncement.

Mr. Boland

It represents the position, and I would like to know if there is any Deputy in the House who would deny it.

That removes a great cloud.

Mr. Boland

I want this matter to be as clear as possible. Deputies opposite can vote against the Bill if they like, but let us be clear on that point, because we are all concerned about the credit of the country. If Deputies on the other side of the House believed that hard-working farmers who had put their life-work into improving their place were liable to have them snapped up, they would be perfectly justified in saying that we were making the people insecure and that there was no fixity of tenure. But there is no fixity of tenure for the other people who have holdings going derelict, on which they do not reside, which are let year after year and not looked after. Where there is congestion of the kind we have in this country, it is the duty of the Government to try and relieve that. I think it is accepted by every side that that type of people ought not to hold the land.

On the question of price, that is not a matter for the Minister, but of course due notice is taken of everything said here. You have on this question difference of opinion too. Deputy Gorey said he was not going to ask that the mad prices that were paid during the War period should be given. As far as I know, the Land Commission tried to do what was laid down in the 1923 Act in regard to price, that is, to give a price that is fair to the owner and fair to the Land Commission. That is the wording of the provision dealing with price, and they tried to do that. There is an appeal to the Appeals Tribunal on the question of price. There have been cases, especially the case that has been mentioned here so often—the fee farm grant case in County Meath, which resulted in a small amount going to the owner. We are making provision in Section 46 of this new Bill to prevent a recurrence of cases of that kind, to provide for a more equitable distribution of the purchase money between the owner and the people who have the fee farm grant. I know that a lot of cases have been held up because it was believed that something like what happened in that case might happen again. I am personally very sorry for what happened there. Deputy Cosgrave asked me if anything could be done, but I am afraid it was one of those cases where we did not know what other cases it might open, and we might not be able to deal with all the claims that might arise.

Would that be one of the cases dealt with under this faulty legislation?

Mr. Boland

Well, it could have been faulty legislation; we are trying to amend it now. It was done under Section 44 of the 1931 Act. I am not trying to put the blame on the other Government for that.

I am trying to make a case for the unfortunate woman.

Mr. Boland

It was not legislation passed by this Party that was responsible for that. It was passed— sponsored—by the last Government. It was the 1931 Act, and we are amending that section now in such a way as to see that in future the net result will be more equitable distribution of the purchase money. We could discuss that more on the Committee Stage.

All the sections, except these two, will improve the position as far as the Land Commission is concerned, and make for the better working of the Land Commission in several ways. We are taking powers now regarding turbary and grazing rights. I know cases myself where one or two people have held up very big schemes of division of turbary, simply through cussedness and nothing else. There was no question of expropriating them: it was simply the rearranging of a big bog. One was held up for 12 years; it is ten years since the Land Commission told me that they were going to rearrange this bog. It was in some part of County Roscommon, and there were two people whom nobody could move. The parish priest saw them, several other people saw them, and I saw them, but they could not be moved. That is a ridiculous position, and I think everybody will agree with me that we ought to take powers to extinguish these rights in cases of the kind.

I think we gave a fairly good explanation in this memorandum. I do not know whether I am expected to deal with everything; I could not possibly deal with all the points that have been raised. There is just that big point, and I have cleared away any doubts about it. No one who works his land reasonably well at all is going to be interfered with. The working farmer will not be interfered with, but the people with non-residential neglected holdings certainly will.

Regarding the landless men several Deputies on the opposite side of the House did not want landless men to be considered at all. We have the same position on this side of the House, and I myself feel I would agree with Deputy Fagan that farmers' sons would be the best men, but the trouble is that so little land remains and the big problem of congestion has not been settled at all. I think most of the land that still remains to be acquired ought to be, and probably will be, used in relieving chronic congestion in different parts of the country. The Banking Commission's Report has been referred to but I will not discuss that now, but as far as my recollection goes the report said it was a good social work, and I think everybody will agree with me. We do intend to divide most of the land that remains: there will be a certain amount for landless men, but the big bulk will go to relieve this congestion.

On that question, some Deputy here —I think it was Deputy Cleary—said, instead of giving land to people one mile and a half or two miles away, we should take them out of these congested districts and give them new holdings. I am surprised to hear that the Land Commission has given land to people a mile and a half or two miles away.

It is good business in many cases.

Mr. Boland

As a general rule, it does not work out well, but there may be exceptional cases. As general policy I think it will be admitted that it is very bad: it is very difficult to get people to migrate even a short distance. When they are in these holdings and have grazing rights, and when their holdings are at low charges, they are rooted there for years and it is hard to get them to move; in some cases, it is practically impossible. That is the problem. There is trouble—and there generally will be trouble—when there are more applications for land than can be provided for by the amount of land that is available. For instance, there is the Ballyhaunis case, where there was an attempt by the Land Commission to do the best they could to relieve congestion in the best possible way.

I saw the scheme, and I did not see what more they could do. On the other hand, you had people who were also as badly off as those who got the land, and eventually that led to all the trouble. I do not see what we are going to do about it. If these people would agree to migrate, there may be some way of settling it, but apart from that, I do not see what to do. It is a very difficult problem to solve. In my opinion, I would like to see a certain type of landless man put on the land; but he has not a great chance in view of the small amount of land available.

There are a lot of landless men living beside big estates that should be divided.

Mr. Boland

Deputy Cosgrave asked would we give a farm to a man who we knew had £1,000. We certainly would not, but if we had given one it would be rather difficult to take it back again. Regarding the point raised by Deputy Lynch, I think I had better wait until the Committee Stage, as it is really a Committee Stage point—as indeed most of them were. I have dealt with the general question, the one that certainly disturbed me, that we were simply shirking the farmers' questions and expropriating them, and all the rest of it. I am glad to know exactly what Deputy Dillon was after, because I did not think he wanted free sale. I would ask Deputies not to put all the blame on our Party. We tried to discourage interference, but you will find that it is not confined to one side of the House, and everyone can help in trying to bring in a better spirit.

I said, when I was speaking, that I believed we might arrive at a formula whereby fixity of tenure might be restored. There is no use reproving us for being apprehensive, if we are just apprehensive. We may be unreasonable, but the thing is to set people's minds at rest. Does the Minister believe that, on the lines of his statement here to-day, we could work out a formula which could properly be incorporated in a Constitutional amendment?

Mr. Boland

I cannot understand that point.

I will tell the Minister what the point is. I take the Minister's word that, so long as he is Minister, that is the spirit in which the Act will be interpreted, but I have no guarantee that his successor will take the same view, and the Minister's supporters have no guarantee that, if we came into office, we would administer it in the same spirit. If we are all agreed that we mean to go no further than that with the legislation we pass here, we can fix that limit by a Constitutional amendment, which cannot be altered without a further appeal to the people. No Act of Parliament, no Ministerial statement is unalterable in that way. I have no doubt that the Minister does mean what he said to-day, and I believe that, on the basis of what he said to-day, we could arrive at an agreed formula for that purpose. I am not asking him to answer that now, but will he consider, in consultation with his colleagues, as to whether a Constitutional amendment might not be resorted to in order to remove public apprehension?

Mr. Boland

If we deal with the problems we have to deal with to-day, and let the next Government deal with theirs, we will be doing fairly well. I do not see any necessity for this, and I am satisfied that no Government which is likely to come here will interfere with the people about whom Deputy Dillon, Deputy Gorey and Deputy Hughes seemed to be apprehensive. I think we can leave it to the people of the country as a democratic people. We will go out of office in a few years' time, and the people can then consider the whole thing again, and deal with the situation, if there is any change.

Does the Minister not admit that it is necessary in the interests of credit for farmers?

Mr. Boland

I agree that anything I say can be changed, but it is unlikely to be changed. The Labour Party now is not a very big Party, but we do not know what might happen at the next election, and we have had Deputy Norton saying the very same thing with regard to farms of that type. Deputy Gorey admitted that he was pleased with what Deputy Norton said, so we have the whole House agreed that, so far as farmers of that type are concerned, nobody would dream of interfering with them, and I think we ought to be satisfied with that.

And the Banks know it, too.

Mr. Boland

I do not think there is any use in my saying that I will consider the matter, because I do not think there is any necessity for it, and, personally, I think that is going to remain the situation.

There is one point which the Minister has forgotten. If an assurance like that were put beyond all question, it would end for all time these activities, these demands by irresponsible local organisations, which have been taking place down the country for the last four or five years. I do not know whether the practice has operated in other districts, but in the particular portion of the country I know, it was confined to certain clubs of a certain political tinge. There is no question at all about that. They were in session every month. It has died down within the last three years almost to nothing, because of the action of the Land Commission and the sensible action of the Minister, but it was very strong some years ago, for the first two or three years of the present Government's régime. If the assurance that Deputy Dillon suggests could be put into the Constitution, it would do wonders to restore the credit of the country, and of the land as a security. That is the point Deputy Dillon is aiming at. It would be of immense benefit.

It is worth thinking over, anyway.

Question put and declared carried.

Will you take me as dissenting, Sir?

We will divide on the appropriate section of the Bill in Committee.

Mr. Boland

With regard to the Committee Stage, I should like to get it as soon as I could. Could I get it next week, or would that be asking too much? It is a question of when we will adjourn. I think that, with the explanatory memorandum, Deputies are fairly familiar with the provisions of the different sections, and if it were agreed to take it this day week I should be very pleased.

Give a day extra and take it to-morrow week.

Committee Stage ordered for Thursday, 15th June.

I understand that if the Air Raid Precautions Bill, Second Stage, is not concluded to-day, the House will meet on Tuesday next. That is just an announcement.

It is something more, considering that it is now 9 O'clock.

Top
Share