When the debate on this Estimate was adjourned yesterday, I was more or less replying to certain statements made by Deputies opposite, and, in particular, by Deputy Fagan of the Fine Gael Party. In his statement, he gave us to understand that the Land Commission were working too fast, that they were dividing land much too quickly and that therein there was a danger to our national economy. The real danger then pointed out as flowing from this vast division of land was that the large farms of the country would disappear and we would have nothing in their place but small farms, and, having nothing but small farmers, we would become as the Danes have become, slaves. I have already dealt with the matter of the type of Danish slavery referred to and with how ridiculous this statement really is. Far from being slavery, it would appear that by dividing up the land on the system obtaining in that country, we would increase the prosperity of our nation and have our people very much better off.
What is disturbing, however, about this statement and this type of outlook is that it comes from a Deputy of many years' standing in one of the largest Parties in the House and it is really something we would need to take note of and inquire into, to find out whether or not this outlook, expressed by Deputy Fagan, should by any chance be a reflection of the policy in regard to the division of land of Fine Gael, because, if this were so, the people of the country should be made aware of the outlook of that Party, if that outlook is as expressed by Deputy Fagan. They should be made aware that Fine Gael would not be in favour of dividing the land of this country and do not want or seek to have small farmers in these Twenty-Six Counties.
They would need to know that farmers living on small farms are sometimes to be avoided, that they are an evil in any country in which they exist and that, in fact, they can be regarded as no better than slaves. If that should be the Fine Gael policy, which I hope it is not, then our people should know that that is Fine Gael policy and they should be made aware of it at the earliest opportunity because up to the present time they have not been made aware of it and they may have been mislead in regard to this matter as they may have been misled in other ways by Fine Gael propaganda.
On the question of leaving undisturbed large ranches in this country, I know that we on this side of the House do not believe that the large ranches are absolutely an essential part of our economy. If we can have the land of those ranches divided up and more usefully worked than they are at present —and, God knows, in many cases that would not be very difficult—if we can have them divided in such a way that a greater production can be taken from those lands then we can and will divide them on any and on every opportunity we get. We do not believe these lands should be left to those ranchers who would like to have cattle and only cattle on them—and not only would they like only to have cattle on them but they would not even want to grow the produce on some of their land to feed their cattle. They would prefer to get the small farmers from tillage counties such as my own county of Donegal to grow the crops for them and give them their grain and other crops for a bad price and, if they could not get them at a bad price, they would like to continue importing feeding stuffs from abroad. We have never believed and we never will believe in that system.
We believe the land is there to be used by the people of this country to its best advantage and we believe that to use it to its best advantage entails not only a greater production but also, where possible, a greater amount of employment. No one in his senses will suggest that land left in large tracts of hundreds and possibly thousands of acres under large heavy dry cattle is really giving employment in the way that land can give employment if tilled and properly farmed as lands are farmed in other parts of the country. We also believe that the people in the Midlands and in Deputy Fagan's constituency are not all of a mind with him in resenting the migrants who come in from the West. In many cases, these migrants are welcomed by the local community and in the short number of years some of them have been in the Midlands they have helped in many ways the life and the economy of the part of the country in which they have been settled. We consider that more of that can be done and should be done.
Furthermore, we believe that people such as Deputy Fagan should not be countenanced in this House in view of his outlook in regard to this matter which he expressed here yesterday. We believe also that Fine Gael, as a Party, should either publicly dissociate themselves from his remarks, through some of their spokesmen, or that they should stand up and say that Deputy Fagan was speaking for Fine Gael and that what he said represents Fine Gael policy. On the other hand, I should like to ask Deputy Fagan and his Fine Gael colleagues why it is that, if they do not believe in land division and if they think the Land Commission is working too fast, they are nevertheless supporting it. I should like to ask them why they are keeping as Minister for Lands a Deputy from the Clann na Talmhan Party who does believe in land division and who wants to see the land divided, where possible. Why carry on with the present Minister in that office if they do not believe that this job has to be done and should be done?
On the other hand, if it was only a case of Deputy Fagan giving his personal views then so much the better. It is better that it should be that way than that his Party should hold such views but it is something that should be cleared up and it should go from this House that we do not agree with Deputy Fagan when he talks of Danish farmers as slaves and when he talks in scathing terms of small farmers as a community in this country.
There are many other matters which I should like to mention very briefly on this debate. When I began my speech here yesterday I intended to talk about these other matters but such was the tirade we heard from the opposite side of the House immediately before I began my speech that I was led away from what I really wanted to say. The statement made here yesterday that the Land Commission were dividing land and working too fast is, I think, the greatest bloomer we have ever heard in this House from anybody on any subject under the sun. Nobody thinks that the Land Commission are working too fast. Nobody thinks that, generally speaking, the Department of Lands work too fast nor, for that matter, will anybody agree that any Department works too fast. Our usual trouble with all Departments, for various reasons, is that when we want anything done they are much too slow. While that is true of all Departments I think nowhere is it more true than of the Land Commission. The Land Commission have been in existence for many years. They were set up years ago with a very definite purpose in mind. That purpose has not been attained and, judging by the progress made so far, it is not likely to be attained in our time—and if only the same rate of progress is continued with then I doubt if the purposes for which it was originally set up will ever be attained.
We do not seem to be getting the lands divided and rearranged as we had hoped. It would seem that there are a number of reasons why the Land Commission cannot go faster. I do not say that all of these reasons, added together, are sufficient to justify their slow rate of progress but undoubtedly certain of these objections and these snags are holding them up. That is where I believe the Minister or any Minister for Lands should be able to do something. As we see it at the moment, the acquisition of land is one of the big troubles. Far from improving the situation, the legislation of more recent years has tended to make a complete dead end of the acquisition of land in that the clause about giving market value for land does not, in fact, operate and apparently cannot operate in the minds of the Land Commission. Why this thing cannot be operated is more than I can see. Why the Land Commission cannot go out when a farm is for sale and purchase it for what is regarded as market value, I do not know. There is no great reason that I can see why they cannot do it.
If I want land or if anybody else wants land and there is a farm on the market then the only consideration is whether or not we have the money to buy it. I have never heard of an instance coming before the House where the Land Commissioners, through their Minister, made the case that they had not the money to buy a particular farm. The money is usually available so far as I know and yet although the lands become available they are not always taken up by the Land Commission even though they may need land in the particular area in which it is offered. Why cannot they get going? Why cannot they get a move on? Where land is offered, where it is needed for rearrangement and redistribution, why cannot they get that land? If it is on the market, so much the better; it should be easier to get it then than when they have to acquire it compulsorily.
You have this kind of thing happening in certain cases. You have the Land Commission endeavouring to get land and over a number of years they will have their minds made up that a certain portion of land is very desirable in a particular district. Apparently they have gone into the matter and have decided that so many acres of land in this particular townland or townlands would make the adjoining holdings of an economic size. After years, that particular holding may come on the market—and what happens? Not what we would expect. We do not find that when it comes on the market it is immediately taken up by the Land Commission and rearranged.
In my own part of the country, there is a farm that ten years ago was being sought by the Land Commission for purchase by agreement. They were then of the opinion that such a farm would be very useful in order to give economic holdings to nine or ten people in smaller holdings around about. During the past 12 months the farm that they sought ten years ago by agreement was on offer, the owner having died. What happened? They allowed somebody else to purchase that farm and to settle down in the midst of that congestion, just as it was ten, 20 or 30 years ago and as it will be in another 20 or 30 years. What I want to know is, if ten years ago the situation in a particular district was such that the Land Commission believed they should purchase the land for rearrangement, why—nothing having changed in the meantime except the Government—should they decide now that the need is not there any longer, that they do not want that farm, although they knew it was available and was on offer to the public?
I raised this matter here and I was given very little satisfaction by the Minister. All I want to know from the Minister here to-day is this: did the Land Commission, unaided and unabetted by anybody in politics or otherwise, without any push from either side—did they within the last two or three months decide of their own volition that rearrangement was not necessary, despite the fact that ten years ago in the same circumstances they decided that it was necessary.