Since I proposed this motion a few weeks ago many views have been expressed by the different Deputies who spoke on it. Some of them have been favourable but many of them were, I am afraid, deliberately framed in such a way as to try to give an incorrect impression of what was intended by the Deputies who put down the motion. I have discussed the matter with Deputy Desmond and I can now tell the Minister that, if necessary, we are prepared to withdraw from sections (b) and (c) of the motion the five miles stipulation. During the debate the Minister stated that he considered it would be undesirable to have five miles separating two portions of a holding. I am not inclined to agree with him, but at the same time the Minister's view seems to be the general view of the House— that it would not be possible properly to work two portions of a farm divided by five miles. As I have said, I am prepared to withdraw that.
There is the question of men who are being transferred from one area to another. Deputy Hilliard referred to that the other night and said that the motion was overlooking those people. That is not correct and that was not my intention. I think the motion would have strengthened their position. In fact, if the people who are living within five miles of a farm to be divided, were considered for a transfer, this provision would remedy the position because I honestly believe it is more just to give portion of the land to a person living five miles away in the same parish than to give it to somebody living 100 miles away.
The suggestion was made by Deputy Hilliard and by Deputy Giles that it was wrong to think that land could be provided for landless men because there was not an unlimited amount of land available. Deputy Hilliard used the words ad lib.—that land could not be given ad lib. to landless men. My motion did not suggest any such thing. The terms of the motion are easily enough understood by anybody who wants to understand them. What I sought was that landless men who are prepared to work the land should be given holdings. That does not mean that it should be given ad lib.
Deputy Cunningham showed a truer appreciation of the position than some other Deputies who have, or should have a knowledge of what happens. He pointed out the position of what I call the conacre farmer who has no land of his own and yet who has been making a living off the land by paying excessive rents for it. I think these people would make the finest farmers in the country. They are able to make money and a living on other people's land at the moment; yet they are refused land by the Land Commission. I think they should be considered very seriously. I also think that people who have been working on the land all their lives and who have big families of boys, as many of them have, should be given a chance of setting up in a farm of their own.
There is no use in anybody inside or outside the House saying it is not possible to give land to the landless and that such a suggestion is just vote-catching. The Constitution guarantees equal rights and equal opportunities for all and it does not say that those who have something should get more and that those who have nothing should get nothing. That appears to be the attitude of a number of Deputies. Apparently the man who has not got land through an accident of birth is supposed to belong to an inferior race. These men should be given the same opportunities as people with holdings. It is a ridiculous state of affairs that a Land Commission inspector can survey an area and because he finds a man trying to rear his family on a small plot plus a few days' work outside with the county council or with a neighbouring farmer, he will report that such a man is not an uneconomic holder. That position should be changed immediately.
I do not agree with the Minister when he says that the amount of land available for division is getting smaller. If the commission were to take up the farms which are not being properly used, in County Meath in particular, there would be plenty of land available. These lands at the moment are being handed over, lock stock and barrel, to people who come in from other countries with plenty of bank notes. I think the Land Commission should not allow that to happen. These farms should be bought and divided. It is no answer to say that those people have the right to buy the land. About 18 months ago, I gave lists of farms to the Land Commission. I noticed in many cases that as soon as the Land Commission were notified that the farms should be inspected the owners, who had not used the land for years except to set it on the 11-month system, sold their farms by private treaty. That should not be allowed.
The Land Commission should see to it that when farms like that are sold, after they have been inspected, and listed as suitable for acquisition, they should still be taken over. The story that is going around, that the land is so dear that the Land Commission are afraid to pay the big prices on the open market, should not be accepted particularly when one looks at it from the point of view of the poor man who has been paying from £15 to £30 per acre for land in order to try and make a living.
There are numerous instances of men living in labourers' cottages on some of those farms about to be divided. The Minister says he is prepared to reconsider the position of these people and to give them accommodation plots if considered suitable. As far as the allocation of accommodation plots is concerned, I should like to correct a statement made inadvertently perhaps, by Deputy Hilliard. He said the Fianna Fáil Government did make provision for accommodation plots. They did, up to a period but since 1939 none of those plots have been given in Meath. I agree with him that it was a very good day's work the Minister for Lands of that Government did. I would appeal to the Minister now to go back to the 1939 position and give such plots to landless men when land is available and when the people concerned are considered suitable applicants.
