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.