Committee on Finance. - Vote 35—Lands. – Dáil Éireann (18th Dáil) – Tuesday, 4 May 1965

Committee on Finance. - Vote 35—Lands.

Minister for Lands (Mr. Moran)

I move:

That a sum not exceeding £2,041,100 be granted to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1966, for the salaries and expenses of the Officers of the Minister for Lands and of the Irish Land Commission.

In line with the agreed procedure adopted last year, I propose to take the Votes for Lands and Forestry together this year also. Accordingly, in my opening remarks I shall refer to Votes 35 and 36 and at the conclusion of the discussion the Motion in respect of Vote 35 will be put to the House. Vote 36 will then be formally moved.

The Lands Vote, No. 35, shows a net increase of £463,870 compared with last year. I shall commence by explaining the salient features of this Estimate, especially those items which reflect a significant change from last year's provision, and continue with a brief review of the principal activities of the Land Commission during the year ended 31st March last.

Provision for salaries, wages and allowances is made under subhead A The additional amount, £189,000, required this year is attributable mainly to the effects of the ninth round salary and wage increase—which was not included in last year's provision—and to some adjustments in Civil Service pay during the past year.

The first part of subhead B relates for the most part to travelling and subsistence expenses incurred in connection with the inspection, survey and allotment of lands under the Land Acts. Provision for incidental and miscellaneous expenses such as advertisements, etc., is also included. The additional amount, £13,900, this year is required for the most part to meet authorised increases in the travelling expenses of outdoor staff.

Part (2) of subhead B provides for payment direct to the Department of Posts and Telegraphs for all services rendered by that Department. This has now become standard procedure. The increase of £10,500, as compared with last year, is mainly due to increased postal charges.

The moneys required under subhead D are in the nature of statutory commitments. They represent the taxpayers' contribution in the current year towards the service of land purchase debt accumulated, since 1923, on both tenanted and untenanted land. The total contribution this year, £1,055,940, constitutes the highest individual item in the Vote and represents almost 31 per cent of the entire net Estimate. Of the total subhead provision, some £906,000 will be utilised to make good deficiencies in the Land Bond Fund arising from the statutory halving of annuities under the Land Act, 1933. Indeed, the overall increase of £65,990 in the subhead this year is attributable almost entirely to the halving of purchase instalments payable by new allottees as land settlement proceeds.

Section 24 of the Land Act, 1965, provides that whenever a purchase annuity lapses by reason of the operation of the Statute of Limitations, 1957, the resultant deficit shall not remain a charge on the ratepayers but shall, where necessary, be defrayed out of public funds. A number of annuities payable out of holdings situated mainly on remote islands are becoming affected by the Statute of Limitations, 1957. Subhead D includes a sum of £800 to meet resultant deficiencies in the current year.

The aggregate funds being provided this year under subhead G amount to £460,000—an increase of £125,000 on last year's corresponding provision which, in itself, constituted a record. As the subhead is in four separate parts, I think I can best deal with it by referring to each part individually.

Subhead G.1 involves two items, the purchase of land by the Land Commission for cash in the open market and the provision of life annuities under section 6 of the Land Act, 1965. Up to recently, cash purchases under section 27, Land Act, 1950 were restricted to lands required for migrants' holdings or for rearrangement of fragmented holdings. As Deputies are aware, however, these hampering restrictions have been set aside by the repeals section of the Land Act, 1965 and purchases for cash can henceforth be made for all the general purposes of the Land Acts. During the year ended 31st March last, a total of 26 properties, aggregating 2,532 acres, were purchased for cash under section 27 and it is hoped to increase the volume of these transactions in the current year.

Section 6 of the Land Act, 1965, provides that where elderly, incapacitated or blind persons voluntarily sell their interest in land to the Land Commission, the Land Commission may, at the option of the vendor, and in lieu of payment in cash in whole or in part of the purchase price, provide the vendor with a life annuity. As this section has been fully discussed—and, I might add, favourably received—by the House in recent times, it is scarcely necessary for me to elaborate on it again.

In anticipation of an expanded volume of purchases for cash and also to enable the scheme for payment of life annuities to be embarked upon, provision under part (1) of subhead G is being increased this year by £95,000 to £365,000.

The second part of subhead G stems from section 5 of the Land Act, 1965, which enables the Land Commission to make loans to progressive farmers in congested areas for the purchase of viable farms of their choice, subject to making their existing lands available to the Land Commission for land settlement purposes. I had hoped that it might have been possible to make a start on this scheme last year but, as the Land Bill did not become law until 9th March last, this did not prove feasible. A sum of £45,000 is proposed for the purpose in the current year.

Subhead G.3 provides £15,000—an increase of £5,000 on last year's provision—for payment in cash of compensation for tenancy interests resumed on the small outstanding residue of Congested Districts Board estates. The fourth and final part of the subhead relates to the payment by the Land Commission of auctioneers' commission on relevant purchases of land for cash and land bonds. The amount provided for this purpose last year was £25,000 and it is anticipated that £35,000 will be required this year. I should say that this provision has proved a decided asset in inspiring the voluntary sale of properties to the Commission and my own preference is for voluntary rather than compulsory transactions.

Subhead H provides the funds for payment of gratuities, pursuant to Section 29 of the Land Act, 1950, to persons displaced from employment on estates taken over by the Land Commission for distribution. Last year, gratuities totalling £11,145 were paid to 53 ex-employees—an average of £210 each. From the passing of the Land Act, 1950, to 31st March, 1965, a total of 377 displaced employees have received gratuities aggregating £57,823. Perhaps I should reiterate that displaced employees who are deemed competent to work on land are automatically considered for allotments— indeed, this is only right and proper— but, where they are not found to be suitable for allotments, they are considered by the Land Commission for a cash gratuity, depending on such factors as length of service, personal and family circumstances, availability of alternative employment and so on. It is difficult to make an accurate forecast of commitments under the subhead in any particular year because this depends on the level of acquisition activity and the extent to which estate workers become displaced from employment through these activities. With continuing impetus in the acquisition sector, it is anticipated that £13,500 will be required for the current year.

Subhead I, in the main, provides the funds required to meet the cost of the various estate improvement works which are such an important feature of land settlement. These works include the erection of dwellinghouses and out-offices; the provision of access roads; fencing and drainage; provision of water supply for domestic and stock requirements; turbary development; repair and maintenance of embankments. Subhead I is invariably a popular debating sector in the Lands Vote. Last year, the amount provided under subhead I was £850,000 and expenditure totalled approximately £821,000, including about £437,500 on building works. Some 700 men were employed on the various improvement works in the course of the year and their wage bill amounted to over £300,000.

As land acquisition increases, the volume of land settlement expands with it, giving rise to additional expenditure on estate improvement and development works. This year, the provision under subhead I is being increased by £50,000 to £900,000, or about 30 per cent of the entire Estimate. I feel, however, that Deputies, and particularly those who represent rural constituencies, will be fully alive to the importance of improvements works of this kind and will readily support the financial provision proposed for the current year.

While on the subject of estate improvements, I should say that work study techniques continue to be applied to Land Commission fencing, drainage and road-making operations. Since the introduction of the incentive bonus scheme five years ago, the productivity of Land Commission workers has increased by 55 per cent. During the past financial year alone, the scheme resulted in increased earnings, aggregating £36,500, for the workmen, while increased productivity resulted in savings worth £47,750 in the cost of the improvements works concerned.

Grants for the preservation and improvement of game resources are provided under subhead L to assist regional game councils, representative of all appropriate interests, in carrying out approved locally-organised schemes of direct improvement of game. In the main, these schemes include provision for the restocking of game, improvement of habitat and selective control of predators.

Last year, a sum of £30,000 was provided under subhead L. In the course of the year, grants totalling £25,472 were made to assist schemes involving an aggregate expenditure of about £48,000. In addition, sums amounting to about £4,500, applicable to some of the previous year's schemes, fell due for payment. By 31st March, 1965, the financial provision for the year was fully expended and outstanding approved grants will fall to be paid in the current year. To meet these commitments and in anticipation of a greater volume of game development schemes, provision under subhead L is being increased to £45,000 this year.

In view of the increased importance of game development at both local and national level, I have set up in my Department a special game section concerned exclusively with game preservation and development and with the management of the Department's sporting properties. It is intended to strengthen the section by the assignment of specially-trained advisory and scientific staff so that any guidance and advice which game councils may require will be readily available. It must, however, be clearly understood that efficient local organisation and initiative are essential if the objectives of game development are to be attained.

I am glad to say that, at the commencement of the fifth year of active State participation in game development, good progress continues to be made throughout the country. The operation of the quarantine-incubation station of the County Dublin game council will provide a much needed infusion of fresh blood, leading to an improvement in the numbers and quality of our game birds. The building-up of sound stocks to cater for the tourist and the native sportsman alike is an urgent need and I have advised game councils that the provision of shooting for visitors will be an important feature of this year's schemes. No doubt, difficulties will arise in complying with this requirement but I am convinced that, with goodwill and mutual understanding on the part of all concerned, these difficulties can be resolved.

I attach particular importance also to the setting up of sanctuaries or reserves for game birds, particularly wild fowl. Indeed, our geographical position on the European periphery gives this country a uniquely important role in international planning for the preservation of migratory wild fowl and my Department is giving serious attention to the problems involved in the conservation of these species and their habitats.

In previous years I appealed for an end to faction and mutual suspicion in the sphere of game development. Unhappily, this unsatisfactory situation still prevails but I am hopeful that moves towards the elimination of rivalries and misunderstandings will prove successful. Only in this way can game planning on a national basis be pushed forward.

I have dealt in some detail with the more important subheads of the Lands Vote. As the remaining items are either unchanged from last year or else are token provisions, they do not seem to call for specific comment, but if Deputies wish to obtain further information about them I shall, of course, gladly supply it.

During the marathon debates of the last Dáil on the Land Act, 1965, many of the activities of the Land Commission became the subject of considerable discussion. It is scarcely necessary, therefore, to occupy the time of the House now with a detailed statistical account of past activities and I shall confine myself to a summary of the main results for the year ended 31st March last. In some instances the statistics are still provisional but they are unlikely to vary to any significant extent from the final returns.

On the acquisition side, the aggregate area inspected during the year was 96,800 acres while the total intake of land amounted to about 45,000 acres— the highest intake figure for a single year in the post-war period. The results of the increased funds—both in cash and land bonds—provided by the Government for land acquisition are now becoming clearly evident. As the total area in the acquisition machine at 31st March, 1965. amounted to over 70,000 acres, acquisition prospects for the current year also are particularly good.

As regards land settlement, the total area allotted amongst some 1,800 allottees was in the region of 35,000 acres, which represents a year of very solid and sustained effort. The acreage distributed included the provision of 114 fully-equipped holdings for migrants and the rearrangement of 455 fragmented holdings. With the marked increase in land acquisition, a significant expansion on the allotment side can also be expected in the immediate future and, with this in view, the staffing position is at present being reexamined.

During the year ended 31st March last, a total of 155 new dwellinghouses and 261 out-offices were provided for tenants and allottees. In this connection, I should, perhaps, remind the House that, apart from normal housing activities arising from land settlement, the advances made by the Land Commission to supplement housing grants given by the Department of Local Government have been substantially increased in recent years. Loans up to £500 are now available from the Land Commission in such cases and may be obtained for new building projects or for reconstruction of existing dwellinghouses. During the past year, a total of 365 such advances to an aggregate amount of £138,000 were sanctioned by the Land Commission.

The vesting of holdings and allotments was continued during the year and, in all, approximately 3,450 properties were dealt with. Tenanted land —including residues of CDB estates— outstanding for vesting at 31st March, 1965, comprised approximately 6,800 holdings. These residual holdings, situated for the most part in western congested counties, now represent the remaining hard core of difficult tenanted land cases: they are being released for vesting according as the necessary rearrangement, enlargement or other improvement is carried out.

The position as regards collection of land annuities continues satisfactory. Out of a collectable total of £2,671,252 for the year, the amount actually collected by 31st March, 1965, was £2,542,786.

I do not wish to pass from the Lands Vote without commenting on the enactment of the Land Act, 1965, which was, perhaps, the most significant development of the past year in so far as the Land Commission is concerned. The Bill became law on 9th March last and work on framing the necessary rules and regulations is well under way. I can assure the House that there will be no avoidable delay in bringing the sections involving the implementation of a pension scheme for elderly landowners and the provision of self-migration loans into operation. In the Land Act, 1965, the Land Commission now have at their disposal a superior instrument to enable them to tackle with thrust and confidence the land structural reform problems which still confront the country.

Turning now to the Forestry Vote, Deputies will note that the Estimates provide for a net increase of £197,500. As the figure for 1964-65, as shown in the Book of Estimates, falls to be increased by the figure of £103,075 received from the Vote for Remuneration the actual increase is £94,425.

I should like to deal briefly with each of the individual subheads making up the Vote.

Subhead A, Salaries, Wages and Allowances, at £658,010 shows a decrease of £18,255 over the total provision for 1964-65 which comprised £573,190 as shown in the Book of Estimates for 1965-66 together with £103,075 provided from the Vote for Remuneration in respect of ninth round wage and salary increases.

Payments under this head during the year 1964-65 included arrears of salary adjustment from 1963-64, hence the lower requirement in 1965-66.

The provision of £145,200 for subhead B.1. Travelling and Incidental Expenses, shows an increase of £10,200 over the provision for 1964-65. The increase is attributable in the main to the strengthening of field staff and to a normal increase in travelling arising from the continuing expansion of activities.

The provision of £37,500 for subhead B.2, Post Office Services, shows an increase of £1,300. The provision includes a substantial element in respect of purchasing services apart from the cost of the normal postal services.

Subhead C.1, Acquisition of Land, at £135,000 shows an increase of £15,000 over the provision for 1964-65. The balance in the grant-in-aid fund on 31st March, 1965, was £185,700 so that a total of £320,700 will be available for land purchase within the year. This should be adequate to meet all normal commitments and to provide a reserve for contingencies.

The total area acquired for State forestry purposes in 1964-65 was 27,935 acres of which about 21,000 acres are plantable. The area was acquired in 528 transactions with an average of 40 productive acres per acquisition.

The effective plantable reserve at the end of 1964-65 was about 53,000 acres, as compared with some 55,000 acres at the end of 1963-64. In present circumstances, it is difficult to forecast what are the future prospects of improving the reserve position to facilitate better general forest management but we are, nonetheless, succeeding in maintaining a regular planting programme of 25,000 acres per annum despite the problems associated with a low plantable reserve.

A total of £3,123,000 is being provided for subhead C.2, Forest Development and Management. This represents an increase of £92,000 on the provision for 1964-65. The major part of the provision is attributable to labour costs for which a provision of £2,299,500 is made under the general operational heads of the subhead with a further £111,000, making £2,410,500 in all, for machine operators' wages under subhead C.2 (6). The total amount provided for labour shows an increase of £61,000 on the provision for 1964-65. The increase is due in part to an anticipated increase in the labour force and in part to the cost of operating a 45-hour week for forest workers over the entire year. In 1964-65 the 45-hour week operated only from the month of July.

The average weekly number of men in direct employment during 1964-65 was 4,812 against 4,773 in 1963-64. It is expected that employment in 1965-66 will rise to nearer 5,000.

The provision for State forest nurseries at £249,500 is higher by £5,000 than the provision for 1964-65. The increase is mainly attributable to labour costs.

The provision for the Establishment of Plantations at £728,000 shows an increase of £21,500 over the provision for 1964-65 attributable in the main to increased labour costs.

The planting programme for 1964-65 of slightly over 25,000 acres, including 1,000 acres on State forest lands from which marketable crops had been removed, has been completed. This brings to a figure of 430,000 acres the area of planted forest land held by my Department.

A further 25,000 acres is scheduled for planting in 1965-66. The programme will be as widely dispersed as land reserves allow. It is anticipated that some 40 per cent of the programme will be undertaken in the western counties where forestry development now gives employment to some 2,000 men and provides a wage bill of over £900,000.

The provision of £537,000 for New Roads and Buildings—Head 3—is up by £27,500. Provisional returns indicate a total of 160 miles of forest road completed in 1964-65 with a further 200 miles programmed for the present year.

The sum of £1,136,500 being provided for General Forest Management shows an increase of £37,500 on the provision for 1964-65.

This head bears the cost of maintenance and protection of State plantations including the cleaning of young plantations, repair of fences, drains and forest roads, pruning, fireline construction and such services. With the annual expansion of 25,000 acres in the area of State forest each year the tendency is for expenditure on this head to increase.

The provision of £136,000 for timber conversion represents a marginal increase of £2,500. The bulk of forest produce is sold standing and direct employment by the Forestry Division represents only a fraction of the total employment provided in felling and extraction.

Head 6—Mechanical Equipment for Forest Development and Management —at £336,000 shows little change from last year's figure. An increase in anticipated labour costs has been more than offset by expected savings on maintenance charges.

The provision of £17,500 for subhead D, Grants for Afforestation Purposes, shows an increase of £2,500 on the revised figure for 1964-65. In fact, the outturn for 1964-65 will exceed £18,000. During the year first instalments of grants were sanctioned in respect of newly established plantations totalling 1,035 acres.

In pursuance of the policy of promoting private planting, lectures were given at 14 centres during the year and the planting grant scheme was extensively advertised. I also agreed to continue for a further year to subsidise demonstration plantings in selected areas sponsored by "Trees for Ireland". Arrangements have also been made to subsidise a booklet dealing with trees and planting as prepared by "Trees for Ireland" for publication by Macra na Tuaithe. The forestry mobile exhibit participated in 15 agricultural shows during 1964 and is scheduled to attend a further 15 shows in the coming season. The mobile exhibit has attracted widespread interest wherever it has been on show.

The provision for Forestry Education, subhead E, at £31,940, shows an increase of £3,200 on the provision for 1964-65. The increase is attributable in part to increased allowances to forestry trainees and in part to increases in the general expenses of management.

The provision for Agency, Advisory and Special Services, subhead F, at £20,000 shows an increase of £5,980 on the provision for 1964-65. The main charge under this head is a contribution to the expanding programme for testing Irish grown trees being conducted by the Institute for Industrial Research and Standards at my behest. Provision has also been inserted for some expenditure on the employment of industrial consultants during the year.

The provision for the John Fitzgerald Kennedy Memorial Park at Slieve Coillte, County Wexford, at £25,000 is intended to cover the costs likely to arise during the year in the course of the development of the Park including the provision of roads and the preparation for planting of the Park area. While it will be some time before the results of the planning and preparation become visible, my Department are pressing ahead with the development of the Park with all possible speed.

I should not like to let this opportunity pass without reference to the great generosity of the Irish American organisations, who have already contributed 100,000 dollars towards the cost of the project.

The total provision for receipts under subhead H, Appropriations-in-Aid, at £612,000 is £7,000 less than the amended provision for 1964-65. The main source of revenue is the sale of timber of sawlog size and at this stage of the forest development programme we are subject to variations in the volume of this type of material available from year to year. The sawlog market is buoyant and could readily absorb more timber, had we greater supplies available. Pulpwood timber supply tends to rise gradually and the increase in supply is being fully absorbed by the timber processing industries and other miscellaneous users. In the past year the expansion in demand by the timber processing industries has, in fact, created a situation in which they have had some difficulty in attracting sufficient additional material from other markets.

I should like to close with a renewed appeal for co-operation by all concerned in protecting our forests from fire danger. As Deputies are aware we have just passed through a very hazardous period when in a matter of days 20 fires destroyed 360 acres of State forest. Indeed, but for the co-operation of the Gardaí, the local fire services, the Army and the public at large, the damage might have been even greater, despite the herculean efforts of the local forest staffs. During the period of peak danger no fewer than 154 other fires were brought under control before any damage was done to forest property.

I sincerely appreciated this valuable assistance and the many offers of help and advice received in my Department. The loss, though severe, will have served a useful purpose if it has made our people more conscious of their growing investment in afforestation, as I believe it has. While every effort is made to protect the forests from fire, complete protection would be so costly as to be uneconomic. We must, therefore, continue to depend largely on the consciousness and conscientiousness of the general public on this very important matter and I seek also the goodwill of Deputies to stimulate and promote a better sense of care for the forest areas in their constituencies.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

I should like to open my remarks by congratulating the Minister for Lands, not on the activities of his Department but on his reappointment, and to wish him every success and good luck during the term of office before him. Whether it is for better or for worse, like the passing of the Land Act, it is an evil we must accept for the time being. I sincerely wish the Minister every success and good luck in his Department.

I cannot help remarking on the extraordinary amount of disappointment that will be felt throughout the length and breadth of this country during the next few weeks. The amount of disappointment that must follow the introduction of this year's Estimate for the Department of Lands will be of extraordinary volume. I am given to understand that in practically every constituency in Ireland during the last general election campaign, practically more land was promised to the people than there is land in the country. Therefore, I cannot help commenting for a few moments on the disappointment that must follow the Estimate now presented by the Minister.

Not only must there be a great deal of disappointment felt not by hundreds but by thousands of persons throughout the country who were promised land immediately on the return of Fianna Fáil to office, but there will be other feelings as well among the thousands who were told that the reason they had not been given land during the past 33 years was that Fianna Fáil had not at their disposal the implement with which to give them land, namely, the Land Act passed earlier this year. Now that March 9th has come and gone, now that the Government have succeeded in limping back by the votes of the thousands of people who were given to understand they would obtain land, not anything in the nature of meagre allotments, all those people, whether they were landless, smallholders or cottage tenants must feel grim disappointment. Each one of those was told he would be put on the list for a farm as soon as the Land Act became law.

Now, in the Estimate, we find nothing whatever of an extraordinary or revolutionary character. There is nothing in this Estimate as a matter of fact which would give one to believe there will be any greater drive to assist the congest than there had been in the past. However, I feel we may be unreasonable in offering any severe criticism of the Land Commission since they are only finding their reorganised feet in the interval since March 9th. If we have any serious criticism to offer it might be as well to leave it until this time twelve months to give the Land Commission an opportunity of facing up to the revolutionary and extraordinary changes which they were to undertake on the passage of the Land Act.

Every Deputy representing a rural constituency knows quite well that not alone in the defined congested areas but in practically every county in Ireland there are many pockets of congestion. While we have those pockets of congestion we must bear in mind that we have, endeavouring to eke out an existence, a very great number of small uneconomic holders. Therefore, the first responsibility of the Land Commission, the first duty of the Government, should be as far as possible to bring up by way of increased acreage the standard of those uneconomic holdings.

The Land Commission have in the past been greatly criticised because of the very long, tedious and drawn-out character of the activities in relation to land acquisition and division. We have now an undertaking from the Minister that delays such as existed in the past will not occur in the future. We can only hope this will be the case and I would impress on the Minister the necessity to take suitable action to expedite the allocation of land which the Land Commission have in their possession for a number of years and which they have been setting year after year.

The process of continuing to let or set land may not in the long run be in the best interests of the land itself. Usually, after a period of letting, land becomes run down and the tenant is not disposed to undertake the necessary manuring and fertilising which he would undertake if it was his own property. In cases where the Land Commission have been setting lands over a long number of years, I wonder if they have taken any precaution to ensure that these lands will be suitably manured and kept as highly fertilised as possible. That is something the Land Commission should consider.

The continuous letting of land is a bad policy and I would ask the Minister to impress on the Land Commission the necessity for allocating and dividing the lands after a season or two at the most. In many cases lands are set for two seasons and therefore there should be no need for the Land Commission to set lands, unless there are very strange local circumstances, for a third season. The Land Commission should now be in a position to prepare their schemes more speedily and I suggest that the Land Commission inspectorate, particularly the outdoor staff, should be increased. In the past there have been considerable delays in carrying out inspections of lands.

I have often wondered whether it was necessary to have some of the extraordinary powers which have been conferred on the Government by legislation or whether it would not have been better to increase the Land Commission staff under the powers they already have. There are many counties in which the outdoor staff should be increased. The Land Commission staff, particularly the inspectors, are men of great understanding and ability, men who understand the problems of rural Ireland. One reason why they are considerably handicapped in carrying out their duties with greater speed is the vast amount of work which is allowed to accumulate in the various areas in which there is not sufficient staff. The Minister should obtain a report from each district, or from the areas in which there are senior inspectors, and find out the strength of the staff. It is impossible for the Land Commission to carry out inspections, decide on the amount they should offer on the open market for land, or carry out speedy investigations of applicants' circumstances, unless they have sufficient staff to do it thoroughly. I would ask the Minister to examine that aspect of the problem particularly.

The Minister cannot evade his responsibilities in connection with the flight from the land, emigration from rural Ireland or the problem of the congests. Very much is expected of him in this period of office. There is still a very great amount of emigration, particularly among very small farmers and farmers' sons. During the course of the debate on the Land Bill, the Minister gave certain guarantees that owners of small holdings who had to seek work on the roads, in the Forestry Division or elsewhere, in order to supplement their earnings, would not have any serious action taken against them by the Land Commission in so far as dispossessing them was concerned. There is to-day uneasiness and discontent among owners of small portions of land which are insufficient on which to eke out an existence and they therefore have to supplement their incomes by seeking employment. For this reason it would be wise to get an assurance again from the Minister to ease the minds of these smallholders and to assure them that those who must seek work elsewhere need have no fear of being dispossessed.

The Land Commission in the main have made reasonably good headway in regard to the purchase of land on the open market. I am glad the Minister referred to this in his speech. Since the Land Commission entered the public market, they have been very good customers and have succeeded in purchasing land in areas where there may not have been a ready market available for it. I am glad that the purchase of land for cash on the open market is continuing and that provision is being made in this year's Estimate for its continuation.

I was disappointed that the Minister made no reference whatever to the Shannon Valley. In his annual Estimate, he usually refers to the extraordinary and peculiar circumstances of the many landowners in that area, but for some reason or other, he made no reference to them this year. May we take it that the problem has now been solved and that there is now no problem for the landowners in the Shannon Valley? Or may we take it, since the announcement that this great drainage scheme of the Shannon, which will take several years, has been made, that the special section of the Land Commission which deals with the Shannon Valley is now to have a temporary rest?

The Minister should let us know what he has in store for these landowners who have been expecting very great things from the Land Commission. Many of them have been provided with farm buildings and out-offices; many have volunteered to leave the district and others have not, but nevertheless as a result of the annual flooding and the danger to livestock, many landowners can graze their lands only for four or five months. The lands are subject to flooding for the remainder of the year; they are waterlogged and cannot be grazed by sheep because of the danger of fluke which can arise because of waterlogging of land.

I would ask the Minister to let us and the people of the area know what he has in store for them because as far as his speech is concerned there is nothing there for them for the next 12 months. We should not allow this opportunity to pass without asking the Minister to make some comment on what the future holds for them, what special concessions he has in mind or what he proposes to do about them. It is impossible that this new Government, full of life, energy and enthusiasm, ready to jump into the fray to assist the underdog and the Minister, with all his ability and enthusiasm, have completely forgotten the farmers of the Shannon Valley. It seems he has either forgotten them or that it is the Government's intention to do nothing about them. We want to know if he has forgotten, if he has something in store for them or if he intends to take no action about them until this time 12 months.

Having done so on many other occasions in the past year, I want to direct the Minister's attention again— it is no harm to give him an annual reminder—to the amount of land being purchased by aliens. There is no use in his telling the House that this is not a problem: it is a problem and everybody knows it. In this case, as in the case of the Shannon Valley, in a very carefully-worded Estimate speech, there is not a single line on the purchase of land by aliens. It is time serious action was taken in regard to this matter. Whether for good or ill, if there had been a change of Government, I want to say with full responsibility that steps would have been taken to prevent the purchase of land by international speculators, gamblers and other foreigners because we would have concentrated on seeing that the land of Ireland was kept for the Irish, for the small farmers' sons, the uneconomic holders and others who at present cannot get land. At every conacre letting throughout the country, there is ample evidence of that. You see smallholders competing with each other and paying vast sums for conacre lands to be used by them for a season or two. It is nothing short of a national scandal to see farmers and smallholders with insufficient land paying exorbitant prices for conacre and at the same time to see international gamblers and speculators buying up Irish land simply because they have big cheque books with which to purchase the vast areas which they are buying and have bought.

The Minister has told us that this is not a problem, despite the fact that the National Farmers Association and other organisations have presented him with a detailed account of the acreage purchased by those people. If the land is on the market, why can appropriate action not be taken to prevent its falling into the hands of aliens? The Minister will have to face this problem and will have to take some action because aliens are still coming in to purchase land and to make inquiries about it. That state of affairs must be altered so that the land we have available will go into the pool for the relief of congestion. There is a great case to be made for the purchase by the Land Commission of land likely to fall into the hands of aliens and I trust some serious action will be taken to deal with the problem.

The Minister referred to the gratuities paid to ex-employees. It is only right, when an estate is acquired for division or purchased by the Land Commission, that the employees should be looked after. I am pleased to hear from the Minister that certain gratuities have been paid to those ex-employees and that, where possible, land is given to them. I would ask the Minister to ask the Land Commission to give consideration to the idea of being more generous in dealing with ex-employees of estates and to take into consideration that many of them may live in houses which are rent-free on the estates. Many may have the grass of a cow or a pony or a horse. They are mainly married men with family responsibilities. If a gratuity is being provided it should compensate amply for the loss of employment and other perquisites. I strongly advise the Minister to ensure that the Land Commission will first consider offering these ex-employees portions of land and where it is possible to provide land, it should be given to them as land would be better for themselves and their families than mere financial compensation.

In many instances of which I know, ex-employees have been disappointed at the gratuities and disappointed at not being offered portions of land. Some senior officer of the Land Commission should be made responsible for conducting a full investigation into the circumstances of every employee who is being displaced so that the Commission will be fully satisfied that he is being treated fairly and reasonably and that where possible, land should be given to him. Most of those who have been working on or managing land have been anxiously looking forward to the time when they would become owners of land themselves and the only opportunity they are likely to get of achieving that ambition will depend on the Land Commission sympathetically considering their cases.

The Minister has referred to the pool of land that auctioneers and others make available. It is worth noting that there is now a fund of goodwill as between the Land Commission, the auctioneers and the vendors. Let us hope that happy state of affairs will continue, because if it does, it means the Land Commission will be put in the way of purchasing many holdings which will assist in solving the congestion problem. I make a very serious appeal to the Minister, now that we have finished with the Land Bill, to deal seriously with the problem of the purchase of land by aliens. There are 700 men employed by the Land Commission and the wage bill is £300,000.

The Land Commission are to be complimented on the design which they have adopted for houses and outoffices. Deputies of all Parties would be interested in seeing that in connection with Land Commission houses and outoffices the design should be up-to-date and attractive. It is gratifying to note that in recent years the Land Commission have abandoned the ordinary, plain design and have adopted a modern design which is very attractive architecturally. I am happy to note that that policy is being continued. Most of the houses now being provided for allottees are very attractive. Deputies who travel by road from Dublin to the south can see some of the very attractive houses which have been built by the Land Commission near the village of Castletown in Laois, right beside the main road. I do not know if the Minister himself has ever seen these houses. I have been in them and know the houses very well. They are of very good design. Where the Land Commission are building houses throughout the country they should adopt the modern plan and attractive design used for the houses on the Franks Estate, Westfield, Castletown, Laois.

There is a complaint about the out-offices built by the Land Commission. To what extent that complaint has been ventilated to the Land Commission inspectors I do not know. We are told that in some cases the out-offices are in too close proximity to the residence. Whether that is for purposes of economy or not, I cannot say. It would be better to have the outoffices as far away from the houses as possible. On the other hand, a landowner likes to have the farmyard and buildings in a convenient situation, particularly if he has to look after stock at night time in winter. In these circumstances the siting of the outbuildings is a difficult problem. Complaints have been received from time to time that the outoffices were too near the residence. I would ask the Minister, therefore, to have the problem examined and to see whether or not it would be possible to build the outoffices a little further from the residence.

The progress that has been made in recent years in the preservation of game is a matter of congratulation to all concerned. The preservation of game stocks is of the utmost importance. I am glad to note that a section of the Land Commission have been dealing with this matter. I trust they will have the co-operation of public representatives, county councillors and members of committees of agriculture in this important work. Certain State assistance is made available to regional game councils at the moment. I have spoken on this subject on many occasions and I would again stress the advisability of making funds available for game farms. A great deal more could be done to encourage existing game farms and the establishment of further game farms throughout the country. Incubators, electrical heaters and the other necessary equipment are very expensive. Those who are sufficiently enterprising and interested in the preservation of game stocks deserve every possible encouragement. I would ask the Minister to consider this matter and to see if anything can be done to assist financially those people who are prepared to spend their own private money on hatcheries and game farms. The fencing that is required is of a special mesh and is very expensive. Some owners and promoters of game farms have gone to considerable expense and have not received any State aid whatever. I would ask the Minister to have regard to the considerable outlay involved in a game farm and the great demands on those people in order to maintain the high standard of their game farms. There are one or two game farms in my constituency and in other constituencies also a great contribution is being made by the promoters of game farms and I trust that some assistance will be given to them.

We can only hope that the year ahead will witness an improvement in the livelihood of congests. The main duty of the Land Commission is to relieve the congestion that exists. That is a very difficult task. It is the task with which the Minister is now faced. It is his responsibility.

The forestry programme announced by the Minister cannot be described as being very ambitious. As this is the first occasion that the Minister has had since the general election, I thought he would have availed of it to announce a very courageous forestry programme. Nothing of a revolutionary character has emerged from his statement introducing the Estimate. Apparently we are to limp along from where we were.

There are approximately 4,800 persons employed in forestry. It should be the ambition of the Government to increase that number to 10,000 in the shortest possible time. At one stage the Forestry Division had under consideration the question of the planting of the Shannon Valley. Has that proposal been abandoned? The Forestry Division were in communication with Bord na Móna in connection with a drive for the planting of suitable shrubs and trees on cutaway bog. What has happened to that proposal? There are mountainous districts in which there are no State forests at the moment and which would be suitable for afforestation and have been listed by the Forestry Division for attention. What has happened to that list and when is it proposed to undertake schemes of afforestation in these areas?

Afforestation is a great source of employment. The Master Builders have paid a tremendous tribute to Irish timber in describing it as being possibly the best constructional timber available in the world. The Forestry Division have some outstanding forests to their credit, but I am disappointed that we have not had something more definite from the Minister in connection with the future of forestry. To tell us that certain lands are to be acquired for afforestation purposes is insufficient. In my own constituency, there is a vast amount of land convenient to the existing State forests which could be acquired for forestry purposes and in that area the numbers employed at forestry could be doubled.

On many occasions I have asked that steps be taken to improve the conditions under which forestry workers are employed. In speaking of forestry workers, we speak of the foresters who are in charge and of the workers themselves. If you have a contented staff, great headway can be made. At each forestry centre, our forestry workers should have ample supplies of protective clothing and rubber boots. There are many areas in which there appears to be a shortage of protective clothing and rubber boots. It is inhuman to expect men to stand in water and drains without suitable footwear supplied by the Forestry Division. Where there is a permanent staff, they should be provided with what can be described as hip footwear. It is unfair to expect a man to put his feet into boots which have been worn by another man. Medical people have advised against different people wearing the same footwear. Surely it is possible for the Forestry Division to supply, say, a dozen workers in an area who specialise in drainage work with a pair of boots each, suitably marked and put aside for the workers who use them. This is a problem to which the attention of the Forestry Division has been directed previously. They say it is no harm for one man to wear another man's footwear but the medical people state otherwise.

I am keenly disappointed that there is not a far more substantial increase in the money provided for forestry. In regard to the five-day week and a pension scheme for forestry workers, these are matters which have been under consideration for a long time and we have now reached the stage at which they should be finalised. The pension scheme for forestry workers ought to be on a generous basis and the matter should not be postponed from year to year. The workers should not be left hanging like Mohammed's coffin, neither up nor down. There is no use promising the workers' trade union that there will be improved conditions, unless it is intended to take some positive action. I speak as a representative of a constituency in which there are a large number of forestry workers and in which there are some of the finest forests in the country. The forestry workers are devoted to their work. All they need is a little encouragement from the Department, and if they get that, they will give the Department a bountiful return in good service and hard work.

I am thoroughly dissatisfied with the progress in regard to the provision of houses for foresters. A forester who is in charge of an area has a very great responsibility. He is responsible for the payment of his men, for their supervision and for giving suitable instruction to them. It takes a number of years to qualify as a forester. It is very difficult work and it is a calling for which few are suitable. In this country we have a group of foresters who are as good as any in Europe. When we have such devoted workers in charge of our forests, is it not only right that we should provide amply for them in order to give them greater encouragement in their work?

There are 163 married foresters employed by the Minister for Lands. Only 80 of those have houses provided for them. What steps are being taken to provide suitable housing accommodation for the remainder? They will not be housed by the local authorities, who tell them that they are not entitled to houses, that it is the duty of the Forestry Division to provide houses for them. When we are asking trainees to go into the Forestry Training College in Kinnitty, who, we hope, will qualify as foresters, surely we have a duty to provide them with houses convenient to the forestry centres?

In that period let us hope some steps will be taken to improve conditions for our foresters. If the Minister does nothing else in the next five years except bring in a proper pension scheme for forestry workers, together with reasonable working conditions, and the provision of proper housing, he will be able to leave office in 1970 in the knowledge that he has done reasonably good work in his Department.

The Minister may be interested to know that 11 foresters are living in houses without any piped water and there are three foresters living in houses in which there is no electricity. There are 15 foresters who have not been provided with any housing accommodation by the Department.

Substantial headway could be made in the Forestry Branch. I recommend the Minister to deal courageously with the problems in which forestry employees find themselves involved. If these are solved substantial progress will be made.

We have no objection to the Minister being provided with the money he seeks. We have no objection to giving him money for the relief of congestion. Such money is money well spent. We hope that when the Minister comes in again next year he will be able to give us in greater detail the new schemes of development in relation to land and forestry. The numbers employed by the Forestry Branch could be increased considerably. I hope a new and courageous programme will be embarked on and that next year the Minister will show a more realistic approach to afforestation. Hundreds of acres of suitable land are available for afforestation. Hundreds of workers in rural Ireland could be employed usefully on forestry work. That aspect of the Minister's Department calls for immediate and urgent attention.

Mr. James Tully

I should like to pay tribute to the officials of both the Land Commission and the Forestry Branch for the courtesy they extend to members of my Party and myself when we have occasion to approach them. On many occasions our requests get a "No" but it is at least a polite "No". I do not trouble the Minister with problems because I believe there are other ways of dealing with them. If they can be dealt with by the Minister's officials there is no point in cluttering up the Minister's desk with queries.

I was a little disappointed that the Minister was reappointed as Minister for Lands. I have nothing personal against him, but I rather hoped he would be made Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, or even Minister for Finance, because it would be a nice change for those of us who live in the east to have a Minister for Lands from east of the Shannon. It seems to be becoming a tradition now that Ministers for Lands must come from west of the Shannon and that means a recurrence of the problems with which we have been attempting to deal in my constituency as long as I have been associated with public life. During the last election we had quite a number of modern Moses leading people to a promised land. Luckily for themselves, and the country, they did not find their way into this House. The electors dealt very effectively with them. If all the land promised were to be bought by the Minister in the next few years, the entire State budget would not be sufficient to buy it.

It is rather shocking that we should still have politicians, those anxious to be politicians and associates of politicians promising land to people and giving the impression that migrants will not be brought in to the midlands or to the east. Mark you, the older politicians in the Minister's Party are wise enough not to get too deeply involved in this and probably the young fellows will catch on in time. This matter is rather irritating because it crops up at every election and at every opportunity on which support is required. It is just too bad that it should be allowed to continue. I do not know if the Minister can do anything about it or even if he is aware of it. But it is happening.

I have constantly told my constituents that I cannot influence the Land Commission and that I cannot get land for people unless they are first entitled to it; but it is galling to find other people attempting to have them change their political allegiance on the basis that land or farms can be provided for them. The fact that time and again we find people who do not appear to qualify for land according to our standards coming up with pieces of land, from a couple of acres to a full-sized farm, while people who have other political views appear to be left out, does give those people who promise farms a certain amount of status. They are able to point to certain people and say they got a farm because they were supporters of their Party and that somebody else did not get a farm because he did not support them. I do not believe the Land Commission lend themselves to this sort of thing, but when I find it happening again and again that the people who, according to our standards, are not qualified come up with the prize plums of good farms, while those who in our eyes are far more entitled are left out, it makes me wonder is there something wrong.

As I say, I am not convinced the Land Commission would lend themselves to this sort of thing, but I intend to make a pretty thorough investigation of the most recent happening in my constituency. In this case there were two people almost similarly circumstanced with a certain sized farm, both of them working for a living because they could not exist on the land, one of them with a bigger family than the other. Yet one of them comes up with a farm and says: "The local cumann assured me I would get that farm. The other man did not get it because he did not vote for the Government Party". That makes one think. While I do not want to blame the Minister for it, if I can get definite proof there is political influence in the allocation of farms, I propose to ask for a full investigation, this time from the Minister himself. I do not want to say anything further about that matter.

When farms are divided, we usually have, at least in Meath, many people who hope to get land. They give certain reasons why they think they should be entitled to it. We all have our own ideas as to whether they would work the land when they get it. Some of them have experience of farming; others have not. Some of them have small farms themselves, and most of them have stock. If somebody without any land of his own can build up a certain amount of stock and live off the produce of the land by keeping young cattle and sheep and taking conacre for the purpose of getting the root crops and taking grass and meadows, that should be definite proof that that person is entitled to land if it is being divided in the area. Yet the Land Commission do not see eye to eye with me on that. Again and again they have refused to consider those people for farms.

I am aware—perhaps not as much as the Minister—of the terrible conditions in the West where congestion is such a big problem. I am also aware of the terrible conditions in parts of North Meath and neighbouring counties where congestion is also a big problem. The person who knows how to work land, who has lived on land all his life, should be entitled to at least some land when land is being divided. There is no point in telling me that the congests from the West must get first consideration. Even though the local people have been living on the farm and working on it, they are not considered suitable to get land. No matter what way we look at it, the whole life of those people is wrapped up in the land. They are anxious to become farmers in their own right. Yet the Minister and the Land Commission apparently feel they should not be considered.

I know quite a number of people who over the years have succeeded, by taking conacre and so on, in saving sufficient money to buy a small farm. One section of the Land Act now provides that a migrant can get money from the Department to buy a farm. In my opinion, that section will effectively prevent the people to whom I refer from buying farms in future. If I am not mistaken, this will mean that the local man who had his eye on a farm will find somebody with a pocketful of Government money outbidding him. If that happens, I assure the Minister he will be in greater trouble than ever. And I can see it happening.

We have a reputation in this country for welcoming people from other lands, and I would hate to think we are losing that reputation. In fact, I do not think we are. But the people who come on a visit or to start a factory are in a different category from those who purchase a farm in an area where the local farmers have been looking forward to it as an addition to their holding or the landless men have been hoping for a portion of it on which to start farming. If foreigners purchase such farms, they are no longer welcome. I think the recent Land Act is slowing down the purchase of land by foreigners. I am prepared to agree that the initial steps taken in that regard have been effective. Big tracts of land around where I live passed out of the hands of local people to foreigners. That is not happening now. Unless some loophole is found in the legislation, I do not believe large sales of land to foreigners will start again. The Minister made a mistake in not going further and investigating the activities of people who came from abroad to purchase land on a purely speculative basis, buying a holding for a few years and then reselling it at an enhanced figure. However, that is another day's work.

No matter what way we look at it, the Minister will have to discuss with the Land Commission the question of having some sort of rule about what should happen when a farm is divided and local men, who would be able to use the land, do not get any of it. The Land Commission tell me they never put stock out on the road belonging to any man. I could give a couple of instances where, if they did not put them out, the stock found their own way out on the road and the farm went to other than local people. We know that people who live off the land develop over the years what is described by some as a love of the land and by others as land hunger. That land hunger must be satisfied. It can be satisfied only if the Land Commission appreciate that people who live on the land are entitled to a portion of it when it is being divided. In his brief the Minister referred to the amount of money given to people normally employed on a farm when it is taken over by the Land Commission. That is the greatest joke in the Minister's brief. Those of us who are intimately associated with the problem know quite well that when the Land Commission show any interest in a farm, if there are a big number of people employed on that farm the farmer naturally decides that there is no point in carrying on with that number of workers as he will be selling in a couple of weeks or a couple of months, and he lets more than half of them go and carries on with a skeleton staff. When the Land Commission take over, those people are not included in the compensation which is doled out by the Land Commission because they left their employment before the Land Commission took over.

The Minister says he has given out an average of £250 over a period to a number of employees. As the general secretary of a trade union, I know that we negotiated with another Department about two years ago about the closing of a hospital. A number of hospital employees, wardsmen, porters and groundsmen were being laid off because the hospital was not being retained. Eventually compensation for loss of employment ranging from £3,100 to £800 was given to those displaced employees. The Land Commission tell us they have given an average of £250 to people who have lost their employment because the Land Commission took over farms. I am sure many of those people were employed all their lives. I know people who were employed for 20 or 30 years on farms which were taken over by the Land Commission, who got a mere pittance from the Land Commission as compensation.

The Minister tells us the Land Commission decide in some cases that people are not suitable people to whom farms should be given, and that if they are suitable, portions of land will be given to them. I am afraid that in very few cases do we find people getting full farms. Those who are unsuitable, according to the Land Commission, do not get any land, but they get a sum of money which represents the price, at present values, of about one acre, and in some cases less than one acre.

I should like to find out if the Minister can oblige me, who is it who decides people are not suitable to get land. Is it the Minister? Is it the local cumann? Is it the Land Commission officials? Is it the gabby neighbour who knows everyone's business better than his own, who passes on information to an official when he calls? Is it the local Garda? I have heard many different versions from time to time which appear to be fairly near the mark. I should like the Minister to say who does it, and how it is done.

I know a man with a son of about 19 years, a daughter of 16 years, a daughter of 13 years, and a wife, who was considered unsuitable. He is nearly 60 years of age but he was considered unsuitable for a portion of land when land was being divided, although he spent all of his life on a farm. He was given an amount of money which would not buy a bicycle. The Land Commission said that man was unsuitable as a tenant and they could not offer him a farm. These things keep occurring all over the county because of the fact that in Meath, more than anywhere else, more land is taken over and divided, and the problem there is, perhaps, much bigger than it is anywhere else. That is the reason I am labouring this point this evening.

I do not know whether there is any point in going further into this matter, but the Land Commission must have an idea as to what they intend to turn out. Do they intend to turn out good farmers who will make use of the land, or is it the intention simply to relieve congestion in the west? If the Minister does not take my word for it, I could bring him to Meath and show him numerous farms with the houses closed down and the migrants gone to England. Many of those people were brought over from the west to Meath to teach us how to talk Irish, and when we had taught them how to talk English they got jobs in London, Birmingham and other places. I believe we should face up to these matters. There is no use in trying to pass over them any longer.

Another point in the Land Act which should be dealt with is the question of the amount of money which is paid by locals, as I call them—people who are not migrants—when they get a portion of land. The Minister and the Land Commission slipped something into the Act which I was amazed to find supported by those living on the east coast. I am referring to the order that in future when land is divided, if a local man is fortunate enough to get a portion, he pays the full annuity, while the migrant continues to pay only portion of the annuity.

The Minister said a very big portion of this Estimate is to be used for the purpose of paying the half of the annuity about which there was such a row in the early 'Thirties. If the members of the Fianna Fáil Party who were responsible for the stand made then, which resulted in the halving of the annuities, were to come back now, I know the judgment they would pass on the Minister and his Party for what they have done in this recent legislation so far as the annuities are concerned.

That type of discrimination should not be allowed any longer, and I am sorry to say the Land Commission are the people who are attempting to put it into operation.

Reference was also made to the question of Land Commission employment. I think that should not be fully discussed here but since the Minister referred to it it is only right that I should make a comment on it. We appreciate that it is difficult for the Land Commission to introduce either a sick pay or a pension scheme for Land Commission workers generally, but it is long past the time for the introduction of a sick pay and a pension scheme for gangers. I have before me the answer to a Parliamentary question which I received a short time ago. It gives the weekly rate of wages for Land Commission workers in the three areas in the county, and also the bonuses. I am glad the bonus scheme has worked out so well and has resulted in an increase in production. According to the Minister, it has resulted in a tremendous increase in production.

In answer to my question, the Minister told me that in the county generally Land Commission workers get £7.15 per week. That cannot be considered a princely wage at the present time. I am sure that the Minister is aware that in a fortnight's time the farm workers, who have been the Cinderella for so long, will have £8.2 per week. The bonus brings the wages of Land Commission workers up by £1.12 per week, and the wages of gangers up by £2 per week. I believe we must do a little better than that. Apparently an attempt is being made by the Land Commission to treat the incentive bonus as a bolstering of the basic wage. I believe the basic wage should stand on its own, and that no one should have his wage held down because we can quote a bonus on his earnings. The Minister referred to the increased production which resulted from the bonus, which proves that the workers are, in fact, earning the extra money they are getting, apart entirely from the basic wage which they are paid.

The average working week is given as 45 hours. I do not know whether Deputy Flanagan is aware that there has been a five-day week in operation for nine months of the year for a considerable period in the Forestry Division, but it is in operation for only eight months in the Land Commission. I do not know whether Deputy Flanagan is aware of this or not. Perhaps somebody slipped up. I know the Land Commission did not start their five-day week until one month after the Forestry Division. This matter should be rectified. If it was due to an error, it should not have happened. I believe we should have a five-day week all the year round.

I am making the point so that the Minister will have a look at it. It is a simple matter and I believe the extra production coming from the working of an average over the year would mean that the Land Commission would get more out of it than the workers. The workers would not have to go out on a Saturday in the middle of the winter. I am not asking for anything unreasonable; there should be an effort to introduce a five-day week all the year round.

One of the things I am pleased with as far as development under the Land Commission is concerned is the housing scheme, which is an excellent idea. The fact that we now have Land Commission houses with wells producing water all the year round, and not for a few weeks after the people move in, is a big improvement. An effort should be made to ensure that there is decent water and sewerage systems for these houses.

The question of roads was raised on numerous occasions. We are still falling foul of the local authorities, in so far as the Land Commission make roads which do not normally comply with local authority requirements. Making roads through fields to houses at the end are roads which lead nowhere and eventually they have to be taken over by the local authority and maintained by them. Is there any reason why an effort should not be made to be more reasonable? If a road is made into a field, it should lead to another road and connect up with it. There should be correct standards at the start and trouble saved later on.

Again, we have the situation where forestry labourers are working at very low rates, rates boosted by a bonus system. There is something peculiar about this bonus system. In reply to a question six months ago, I was told that the average bonus paid to forestry workers was something like 10d. per hour. I was amazed to find that the rates paid on a recent date ranged from 11d. to 6d.; that would not make an average of 10d. I want to know whether there has been a tightening up of conditions. Perhaps, someone decided these people were making too much money and wanted to ensure that the rates should be tighter so that they would not bring extra pay home at the week-end. Perhaps, the Minister would say something about this when he is replying.

There is a sore point with the forestry workers in relation to the question of holidays. When the forestry workers were working a five-and-a-half day week and getting nine days holidays Saturday was included. Thereby they lost a half day. Now that they are working a five-day week for portion of the year, if they take their holidays during that period there are two Saturdays in the nine days, which means they lose a whole day. It can be explained away by officials any way they like but we cannot get away from the fact that they are losing a half day more than they were losing before the introduction of the five day week. I am sure the Minister will agree it looks peculiar. Why the holiday week should start on a Saturday morning which is a normal holiday for the forestry worker and why that day should be counted is something I cannot understand. God knows, I have tried hard enough to understand it with groups all over the place. It is something which should be rectified because it is engendering bad feelings among forestry workers, the local forester and the Department of Lands generally. It may be a simple matter which I think could be dealt with quickly.

Again, I believe forestry workers are entitled to a sick pay scheme and a pension scheme. No reason or excuse can be given as was given in the case of the Land Commission because these people are working all the year round. The local authorities have devised a scheme whereby people who are casuals are entitled to pensions if they work more than 200 days in the year. If that applied to the forestry workers, I believe it would bring a big number of them who have been employed with the Forestry Division for 20 or 30 years into line. The State should not be the last employer in the country to have its manual workers retiring with a pension scheme. It is time this matter should be attended to and I should like the Minister to comment on it in his reply.

With regard to the sick pay scheme, the Minister for Agriculture said in reply to a question that the State was responsible for giving Department of Social Welfare sick pay to their employees and, therefore, they did not think any other sick pay was needed. Practically every employee at the present time, including local authority, certain State employees, private employees, receive sick pay over a period of weeks to cover the periodical bouts of flu they get.

Most people agree that it is too bad that, if somebody who is working outdoors, particularly with a family to support, gets sick for the period of his illness he would be expected to live on a very much smaller amount than he was getting while working. There should be some kind of supplement from the employer and I would appeal to the Department of Lands to step into line with good employers and give some type of supplement to the sick pay which these people get from the Department of Social Welfare.

I assume that the additional amount being asked in this Estimate is not so much for the cost of the extra land but the extra cost of land. We all know land has been going up in price for some time and is likely to continue to do so. I would ask the Minister whether it is true that it is not the increased acreage of land but dearer land that is causing increased amounts of money to be spent.

Under Subhead 6, mechanical equipment, forest development and management, there is a sum of £336,000. This shows little change from last year's figure. Am I to assume that it is to be spent on the running of machinery rather than on the buying of machinery? I assume if machinery is bought one year, it has not to be replaced by new machinery the next year and apart from occasional breakdowns, there would not be any expenditure. I must, therefore, assume that it is for the running of machinery, cost of replacements, and so on, that this money will be used.

One thing I am glad to see is the extension of forestry planting by farmers. I notice it throughout the country. I have spoken many times in this House suggesting that every encouragement should be given to people to plant trees. There is the old story about the Austrian. Apparently the custom in that country is that when a daughter is born to a farmer, he plants an acre of trees so that by the time the daughter is 21, there is a very handsome dowry for her. It would be a great thing if the farmers would consider planting, even on scrub land, every time a daughter is born. If they did, we would have a tremendous number of plantations all over the country.

Mr. Corish

They are not there.

Mr. James Tully

They are there all right. That is the point I am trying to make. Finally, I should like to ask the Minister to make a comment on the wonderful statement made by him some time ago—I did not consider it wonderful but he seemed to think so—which got such great headlines, his statement with regard to decentralisation. I am one of those who think if you talk about moving a Government Department away out to Mayo, you cannot expect the people of that Department to consider it a great achievement. It was a stupid suggestion and I am sure 99.9 per cent of the Minister's officials in the Department would agree with me on that. I hope the Minister has dropped the idea. Perhaps he would relieve our minds by saying that is so.

There is another matter I should like to mention. The Land Commission have recently been adopting a type of fencing which I understand is costing less to build. I have had serious complaints, not alone from my own constituents but from some of the Minister's constituents who have moved into my area and who will be members of my Party or at least supporters, I hope, in the next election, that the type of fencing used is of very little use. I would ask that this be given another inspection because it appears that something which appeared to be a good idea for economy's sake may turn out to be anything but economic for the people who have to live out the few remaining years of their lives.

Mr. Foley

I should like to begin by congratulating the Minister on winning the confidence of the small farmers of Ireland and of the farmers in general. The farmers of Ireland, for the first time, have accepted the fact that the Department of Lands and the Land Commission are now on their side. This, I am sure it will be agreed, was no mean achievement by our Minister.

With regard to a statement made by one of the previous speakers in regard to the letting of land by the Land Commission, I should like to say that before the Land Commission let land, it gets due consideration by the authorities and no land is let by the Land Commission unless there is no applicant for that land in the area. The Land Commission on many occasions have let land because it was for the financial betterment of a farmer in the area who, at the moment, was in very great financial difficulties. I am sure Deputies will agree that this is not the general policy of the Land Commission but relates to isolated cases which may have arisen throughout the country.

The first speaker said the Fianna Fáil Party, during their election campaign, made promises to numerous people that if they returned them to power, they would receive an amount of land from the Land Commission. I should like to inform this Deputy that it is not the policy of the Fianna Fáil Party to make promises which they are not capable of fulfilling. I am sure these people, if we are to believe what the Deputy has said, will, in due course, receive the amount of land they were promised. With regard to land purchase, I should like to side with one of the Opposition speakers, although it grieves me to do so.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

Now, now.

Mr. Foley

I am fully aware of the problem to which he referred of the foreigner coming into the country to buy land. This is something which I would ask the Minister to consider, but in doing so, I feel sure he has made some allowances and has given the matter due consideration over a period. I should like to say if he is thinking of making an amendment that he should consider seriously the purchase of land by foreigners who are not residing in this country, as many of them are not. Many of them may explain they are purchasing land because they propose to develop a foreign industry here. I am not well acquainted with it but I am sure there is some provision in the law to prevent them from doing so. I hope the Minister will give this matter consideration, as I am sure he will.

With regard to Subhead G, in respect of loans available to farmers for the purchase of land, this, I may say, is a great help to farmers, especially in areas where land is not so fertile. It enables them to purchase land in fertile areas, and that means surrendering their own land, the land they already hold, to the Land Commission. I might say that from what I have heard, the farmers are quite willing to do this because naturally farmers are level-headed, reasonable men who fully realise if they want to better themselves, they have to go forward to fertile land in order to extend their capabilities in farming production.

The Minister gave the number of workers employed in forestry at the moment as 4,812. This may not show an increase but it should be taken into consideration that in view of the amount of machinery in use today, an increase in staff was not necessary. The Minister would have found it necessary to increase the staff if it were not for that machinery. The provision made for planting shows a considerable increase, an increase of no less than £21,500. This is a great tribute to the Minister and his Department and the amount of work they are putting into forestry today. It is not now we will reap the benefits of the endeavours of the Forestry Division but in future years when we shall be able to provide the necessary quantities of native timber for building houses and other structures.

I am glad the Minister made reference to the protection of game which is absolutely necessary to attract a certain type of tourist as well as for our own people. A Deputy remarked that he was not aware that grants are given to sources eager to protect game. I think the Minister will confirm that a contribution of £ for £ is available for that laudable purpose.

Once again, I should like to congratulate the Minister and his Department on this Estimate and to wish him every success in the coming five years during which I trust this Government will remain in office.

Mr. Lyons

I, too, as a South Mayo man, should like to congratulate the Minister, on again occupying the seat he occupies today. At times, I may have occasion to fire a few little rockets in his direction in the course of the coming seven or eight years during which, according to his prediction, this Government will remain in office, although whether or not this is within the Constitution I do not know. However, that is the only thing on which I congratulate the Minister.

I have a feeling that the Minister should have provided far more money in this Estimate. Perhaps it is because I am not familiar with the presentation of the accounts in an Estimate but I cannot find the overall picture of expenditure in this list to enable me to make a comparison with the work in other years and that is a handicap to me in making this speech. I note that most of the increased costs have been occasioned not by the purchase of additional land or attempting to solve the desperate problem of congestion in the west but to meet increases in salaries, travelling allowances, Post Office costs, gratuities for employees and other such expenditure.

While I realise that this extra expenditure is necessary because of increased costs, nevertheless it is a pity that more money was not provided for the day-to-day work of attempting to solve the problem of congestion in the west. The Minister is very familiar with all the problems there as he is with the problems created in the midlands when congests were brought there and when the local feeling is, as was mentioned earlier by Deputy James Tully, that their own people should first be provided for before anybody is brought in from the west or from any other place.

As everybody in the country realises, over the years before this State was established, and since, the drain of population from the west has been such that it is now rapidly killing the west. It is not a slow haemorrhage but one that has been increasing in intensity year by year. I do not know if the rest of the country realises what we in the west think to be true, namely, that if the west dies, then the rest of the country will not long survive. For those reasons, I urge the Minister, with the greatest possible speed and with the energy which I know he has, to tackle the problem so that lands which have been in the hands of the Land Commission for the past ten, 15 and 20 years will be dealt with and not allowed to remain in the hands of the Land Commission any longer.

People on very small holdings who are living adjacent to Land Commission land are crying out for more land. They would be prepared to settle down and rear their families at home in their own locality, if only the pool of land could be dealt with at greater speed. I do not know why the matter should be tied up with so much red tape. I do not know why it seems impossible to solve a matter which I and many other people think can be solved in a much shorter period of time. I urge the Minister to give due consideration to that fact and to see what can be done to speed up the acquisition and division of land.

A young Deputy across the floor of the House some time ago seemed to think that the Land Commission gave land to various people absolutely on merit and that nothing of a political nature entered into the picture. I would just mention that about the end of March last a man was approached by a Land Commission inspector and told that if he was interested in taking a certain farm in the area for conacre, he would get it. Agreement was reached on the price. A week before the election, however, this man was told he could not get the land and it was given to another individual in the village who happens to be a very strong Fianna Fáil supporter. I should like Deputies to make up their minds on whether or not politics had anything to do with that allocation. I do not say that there is widespread corruption, or anything like that, or that any particular Land Commission individual is involved in that sort of thing on a large scale because most of the individuals are honest men who are doing their best in circumstances which sometimes are rather trying.

I referred to land left more or less derelict without hope of anybody returning to it or because the people who have it are making no use of it but I want to draw attention to cases where the holding is so small that the man is not able at a particular stage to take unto himself a wife and settle down there and so he emigrates for a few years in order to get sufficient capital to enable him to come back to settle down there. I appeal to the Minister to ensure that no hasty action will be taken by his Department to dispossess such a person of his land.

The incentive bonus should be expanded. Deputy James Tully said he believes the incentive bonus is not an effective method and that a rise in the basic salary or wages would be the best method to adopt. We all know that if you attempt to raise the basic salary of any type of worker, you will have to go ahead and do it in respect of all workers. Incentive bonuses are an effective method of ensuring the best production for the money expended but I should like to think that all salaries and wages would be adjusted as the cost of living goes up.

On the subject of the preservation of game, I find that in the area I represent, anything that has been done so far has not proved very successful, due to factors such as those mentioned by the Minister. There are various rivalries and dissensions between the people controlling the land and those who want the lands utilised to the best advantage so that tourists and others can shoot over them. The Minister will have to enter into this question in a different way. I do not know whether eventually legislation may be needed to solve the problem. In some areas voluntary effort has proved very successful, but in others it has been far from successful. Perhaps legislation may be needed in the end to see that the most is made of our tourist potential in game.

There is also in my area the problem of unproductive land. We have a large pool of unproductive land held by a great variety and a great number of landowners. It is suitable for nothing but afforestation; yet no method has been devised by which this land can be taken over and utilised for development. In Mayo there are thousands of acres of that type of land and I should be obliged if the Minister would examine the situation to see whether some method could be found to utilise all of this unproductive land which cannot be used successfully for anything but afforestation.

We are approaching a new concept in respect of payment schemes for elderly landowners with a view to acquiring the holdings for handing over, letting or selling to people capable of utilising them. This scheme is in its infancy. I do not know how successful the Minister will be with it but there is a wide field of operation for it. I know there will be a lot of opposition to it but I can assure the Minister that such a scheme is necessary in present circumstances.

I do not think I have anything to say about forestry because it has been covered by previous speakers. Nearly all aspects of it were dealt with before I had the temerity to stand up. I can only express regret that the Minister has not found it possible to get from the Minister for Finance a higher allocation of cash for this work. I hope he will pay attention to the details put before him by Deputies from all sides of the House, even a Deputy from South Mayo.

Mr. H. Byrne

My remarks on this Estimate will be very brief because all the points connected with this Department have been pretty well covered by the Deputies who have spoken. One of the striking features of the debate is that the Minister in his opening remarks did not make any reference to the purchase of land by foreigners. Mention of this problem was expected. In fact it was expected that the Minister would make extensive mention of the situation. Apart from the House being anxious about it, I am satisfied the nation generally, the public, wanted to know. I suppose we can hope the Minister will refer to it when replying. Perhaps the introduction of the Land Act may have dampened the enthusiasm of foreign buyers here. We can only hope that is so.

Let me get to the point where the Minister proposes to give gratuities to people who have worked on estates being acquired by the Land Commission. The figure mentioned, something more than £200 maximum, is appallingly low when we look at it from the point of view of a man who may have worked on an estate for 40 years, when we consider that somebody down the road, with Party affiliations, who had never worked an hour on the estate, might get 40 acres or so while the other man might get a rood or perhaps half an acre. That is unfair and has been made to look more unfair still by Deputy James Tully's submission in regard to the compensation given to other people A sum of £3,000 was mentioned. The Minister should bear this in mind. It may be said here, as it has been said and will be said in the future, that the man who has worked on an estate does not get land because he is not equipped to work it. If such a man were given a fair gratuity, it would help to equip him to work the land. Surely such a man would know more about working land after 40 years' service on the estate than a man who had never before worked land?

I take it that the prime duty of the Land Commission is to divide land they have acquired. The process of the division of land has become a very slow, tedious operation. The Department would be well advised to examine the whole position so as to eliminate in so far as is possible anything impeding progress in this work.

Forestry workers were mentioned extensively by Deputy O.J. Flanagan and I agree with everything he has said. Forestry workers in the main work under deplorable conditions. I speak as a trade unionist who is associated at least in a small way with these workers. In Laois-Offaly, they have to work under appalling conditions. There is, first of all, the problem of the huts provided for them. In wet and snowy weather, they have to work and shelter in huts that you would not put a badger in. There are neither heating nor cooking facilities. A forester in charge told the men they could not have a gas cooker, even if it were provided at their own expense. They put a gas cooker in but they were instructed to remove it. If the hut had gone on fire, it would have been one of the best things that could have happened, if only from the point of view of the men's health.

I was a member of a deputation who went to the Forestry Division to seek a solution to the problems of forestry workers who have no pension scheme and no five-day week for all the year round. The best promise we could get was that the matter would be considered. That statement is as old as the State, or older. From the point of view of fair play, the forestry worker should have a five-day week and a pension scheme, both of which have become part and parcel of the conditions of most other workers.

I need not remind the House that county council workers have such conditions, that industrial workers have them, builders, Bord na Móna workers, ESB employees, mental hospital workers, prison staffs and so forth. Every body of workers one can think of have these conditions. I do not see why the unfortunate forestry workers, who in general terms do not get a fair deal, should be eliminated from a process of this kind. No provision has been made for them in this regard and I cannot see when it will be made in the foreseeable future. When we made our suggestion to the Forestry Division it was in terms of a contributory pension. I am not without hope that something will be done but I do not know when it will be put into effect.

Deputy Flanagan also mentioned protective clothing and various other features which we will be pursuing. I should like in conclusion to refer to something Deputy Foley said regarding the setting of land after its acquisition by the Department. He said that where there were prospective applicants for land division, it was not the policy of the Department to set land in an area of that kind. Can Deputy Foley tell me that there is land anywhere which nobody is looking for? I cannot understand a statement like that from a young, intelligent Deputy. I do not know where there is such land in the country unless it might be at Mount Jerome.

Mr. Lindsay

The Department of Lands by reason of its many facets is an extremely difficult one to follow in all its activities and in all its various outlets for expenditure. By reason of its dual capacity, so to speak, it is made further difficult because you have the Department of Lands, in so far as it is politically controlled on the one hand, and with its various subheads under Forestry, and on the other hand, you have the activities of the Land Commission, a quasi-judicial body who acts independently, or should act independently of the political head of the Department.

It is with that in mind that I feel there may be some explanation in regard to these many activities and the unbusinesslike disparity that there is between the actual amount voted and the amount that it costs to administer. The percentage relationship between the administrative costs and the amount voted for both of these sections, Lands and Forestry, is outrageously unbusinesslike. Perhaps some explanation may be given by the Minister for this when he is replying. Of all Departments this particular Department costs more to administer, vis-à-vis the amount voted to it, than any other.

Many aspects of the activities of the Department of Lands have come under observation in the course of speeches following on the Minister's introduction of this Vote. I have no intention of traversing the same ground in regard to many aspects that have been dealt with already but there are some points to which I should like to make the briefest possible reference and, I hope, effective reference with regard to possible subsequent activities. First of all, may I say in a general way that it has been my experience, both as a member of this House formerly and latterly as a member of the Seanad, and as one who takes an interest in land activities, that, generally speaking, the officials of the Department of Lands do their best to act with strict impartiality and in the majority of cases succeed in doing so.

I am not of course ad idem with Deputy Foley of County Dublin who has been described as a young and intelligent Deputy. I do not dispute his intelligence but his youth and inexperience are responsible for the statement of bald innocence which has just come from him, that there is no such thing as political interference in the letting of land and that land is let to benefit people who must benefit from it. By and large, we all know the story.

From the point of view of letting land, I think land stays too long in the hands of the Land Commission. I do not say that it should be a very much shorter time in their hands because they do have difficulty making comprehensive re-arrangement schemes and they have to keep land until such time as the pool of land becomes great enough to implement the particular scheme they have in mind. That is understandable, but, by and large, the time taken is too long and, therefore, the benefit fails to be immediate or even remotely immediate.

On the question of Land Commission activities, they would do well to direct their minds to the large commonages that exist in very many places, particularly in North Mayo from where I come and where difficulties arise from the user of these commonages. The difficulties contribute to a very great extent to not so much the lack of user as non-productive user. The day of the communal commonage must come to an end because the Land Commission will have as its duty the partitioning of the commonages and making these various allotments part of the holding.

It seems to me quite reasonable that if there is a village which has an outlet on to a commonage which is easily divisible and the people have certain sums or the right to put certain sums on that commonage, then it would be easy enough to divide it among them and let them put on what they wish, either increased numbers or fewer numbers as the case may be, in accordance with their desire to use their holding to the best advantage. There are commonages of this kind which I hope to bring to the notice of the Land Commission very shortly and I hope that they will engage in trying to meet the wishes of the people of those areas in having the commonages divided and fenced. That would provide not alone for more production particularly on the livestock side but it would also make for greater harmony among neighbours.

I would urge upon the Minister and the Land Commission the necessity for keeping a very vigilant eye on this question of congestion and the manner in which things can be done in the sacred name of congestion. It has been brought to my notice that people were able to buy a holding in the middle of a congested area although they did not come from the area, and subsequently enabled themselves to have that particular holding acquired in return for a greater benefit, for themselves, of better land in the midlands. I do not want to labour that any further except to say that we know of such cases and that the Land Commission would do well to exercise greater vigilance in that regard. The people in the congested areas, in other words, should benefit from any re-arrangement and any migration that is possible rather than have outsiders come into their midst—and I do not mean foreigners but people within the country coming in and buying the holding and reaping the benefit which the people in the area should reap and to which they are surely entitled.

Land Commission roads have been mentioned and, indeed, they are important just as is the provision of water in new holdings and the provision of various other amenities. It is important also that game promotion and preservation should play a very big part in the activities of the Land Commission. This is important from the point of view of tourism and also from the point of view of the people of the country to whom recreation is as important as work.

On the question of migration, there should be some relationship both in size and value to what a man gives up to the State and what he gets from it. Sometimes people get too much in return for what they give and on other occasions people get too little. In any event, I hope that the standard of the 45 acre farm that has been set and has been urged will be maintained as far as possible and that the people will be able to get it.

I am disappointed on the whole, like speakers immediately before me, at the amount of money made available for various purposes, good purposes if there was enough money to assist them. As I said already, administration is costing too much and the amenities that should follow from it have too little money available for them.

On the forestry side, I do not know if we could reasonably plant an acre of forestry when a daughter is born; I do not know what would be in mind for sons. Much more could be done on a smaller scale in the Department. Shelter belts should be encouraged to a greater extent particularly in the west. There are some there and the argument that it would be difficult to grow and nurture them to full height and preserve them is no longer valid because they are flourishing there. It is also desirable from the point of view of a farm outlet that there should be some sort of belt between tillage land and the less arable rough grasses outside so that this belt, apart from being a shelter for tillage, would also be a barrier against raids of cattle and sheep on tillage.

By and large, I must express disappointment with the amount of money available for these amenities, for the purchase of land, for rearrangement and resettlement, and I should like an explanation of it because it is something that has agitated me not alone economically but indeed mathematically—why the cost of administration is so great. Possibly, there is a good answer and, if so, I should like to have it so that I could tell the people who question me. May I conclude by wishing the Department the best of luck in all its activities and may it be able, as time goes on, to increase those activities and bring about a greater sense of security and prosperity for the people on the land.

Mr. Coogan

I must express my disappointment and that of many smallholders in the west, especially of those from areas between Carndulla and Cois Fhairrge in the Gaeltacht and from Rosscahill to the borders of Mayo. These people had heard much about the promise of 45 acres but they now realise it is merely pie in the sky, one of these Fianna Fáil promises. I know people in my constituency trying to eke out an existence, not a living, on two acres. They are being told every other day by the Minister they will get 45 acres. These men would feel that they were ranchers overnight if they thought they were getting only ten acres. These people do not wait; many go to the other side and that means you have many old people there, supported by the emigrants' remittances that arrive every Monday. These people think it is time much of the land being held for years by the Land Commission was divided instead of being set year after year. Nine times out of ten it is the man who has a ranch who qualifies for it. I should like to know whether it is merely a question of the highest bidder getting full consideration in the allocation of land.

Returning to the 45-acre holding, would the Minister say how many applicants he intends to provide for in the coming year in the west, even to place them in the west? Or will he give up this codology about 45 acres and do as I have asked him and give ten acres to those in urgent need of it? Many realise that much of the land division talk is unrealistic.

It is regrettable to see the number of disastrous forest fires that have occurred in the past year. I should like to know what steps the Department are taking to prevent these occurrences. It will take a long time to make up the loss the country has suffered. Obviously, something should be done to prevent these fires. There must be carelessness both on the part of the public and those in charge. I should like to know what protection exists. Are there fire breaks to prevent the spread of a fire? Is even minor equipment provided where there are mature trees? It is all right to send for the fire brigade but that may be twenty miles away and by the time it arrives there is a regular holocaust. The Department should play a bigger part in fire prevention.

Finally, I appeal to the Minister to consider the actual needs of those in the west. An offer of 45 acres to a man in my area would be enough to kill him; it would be too much of a good thing. It is a great dream but the Minister should not be dreaming and if he were to give 45 acres to every applicant he would want to take in the Six Counties. Does he intend to do that? To meet the needs of all those listed at the moment, I think he would need part of Scotland also. Let the Minister be realistic and meet the immediate needs of those who are in dire want of land as many of them are in the west.

Mr. P. O'Donnell

My remarks on this Estimate will be brief. There are two things to which I should like to refer. The Minister has commented on both of them in his introductory speech. One is the preservation of game and the propagation of game throughout the country; the other is afforestation.

On the question of game, grouse was one of the main game birds of this country up to immediately before the last World War but, unfortunately, for some reason—and I do not think the Minister or his Department can be blamed for it in any way—our grouse stocks have gone down considerably. Some serious effort must be made to build up these stocks again.

I do not know whether the Minister's experts have examined the problem carefully but several reasons have been given to me for the decline in game stocks, particularly grouse. One is, first of all, the tarring of our roads. It is true that grouse in the nesting season require dust roads for the purpose of procuring grit for the hardening of the eggshell and for the purpose of dusting themselves. Unfortunately, since our roads have become dust-free, grouse, which still practise this habit of dusting themselves, find their wings ensnared and immersed in tar with the result that they die. In Scotland, for instance, this is being remedied by the building of dust tracks through grouse moors; an artificial provision has been made for the grouse in such localities to enable them to practise the custom of procuring grit for the hardening of the shell of the egg. We have fallen down in this matter.

Secondly, wire fences have been blamed for the killing of the younger birds. It is a well-known fact that grouse in flocks and in packs will fly into fences and be killed. That is something we cannot remedy, unfortunately, because with our schemes for the fencing of hill farms additional fences have been erected. I do not think we can do very much about that but we could improve the grouse stock by the importation of grouse from Scotland and from the Yorkshire moors.

I understand that one of the main reasons why we have let the stock run down is that we dread the introduction of fowl pest into the State by the importation of grouse. It is true that teal, widgeon, mallard and other wild fowl may fly into the State and are pest free. I do not think that we should fear any importation of fowl pest by the importation of grouse stock. I understand that the Minister has now set up a quarantine station in which the egg is artificially hatched but I do not think he will find that a success. It would be necessary to import the breeding birds and permit them to breed in their natural environment. In the past, grouse have been one of the biggest tourist attractions we had, particularly, as I have said, in pre-World War II days, and I think these grouse stocks in the west, north-west and south could be rebuilt if the problem were tackled energetically by the Minister and his officials.

Another reason for the serious impact on our grouse stocks is the diversity in the opening dates of the season in the Six Counties and the Twenty-six Counties. In the Six Counties and in Britain the traditional date, 12th August, is the opening date for the grouse season. Here we have suspended the opening date until 1st September with the result that in the moors of Donegal, the moors which are divided by this artificial Border, we find portion of the moors being shot over on 12th August and the balance being shot over on 1st September. There should be uniformity in this matter of the opening of the grouse season and in these days of goodwill between the two parts of the country, there should be a get-together between the appropriate authorities and an agreement on a fixed date for the opening of the grouse season.

One of the greatest destroyers of young grouse is the old cock. Prior to the postponement of the grouse season, it was customary to shoot down old cocks in the early part of the season. Now young birds have grown so strong that it is most difficult to distinguish between the young birds in a pack of grouse, particularly when the pack is being broken up, and the old destructive cock and the same methods of elimination of these destructive birds are not available. We should go back to the original date of 12th August or else arrange with our friends in the Six Counties to postpone their opening date until 1st September but I discussed the matter with many sportsmen and all are agreed that the more appropriate date for the opening of the grouse season is 12th August.

There is no doubt whatsoever that the shooting of grouse in the month of September is a most difficult and hazardous pastime. Grouse are wild, difficult to shoot and packs are difficult to break up. In the old days, and even yet in the Six Counties, very few grouse were shot on the grouse moors during the month of September, when our grouse season is opened. I would commend to the Minister serious consideration of this matter with a view to seeing if something can be done.

We have postponed the opening of the pheasant season to 1st November whereas for our friends in the North the season opens on 1st October. We find, particularly those of us who shoot and live along the Border, that parts of our shoot, parts of our preserve, parts of our rearing grounds, are shot over by our colleagues in the Six Counties in the month of October, before we are permitted to fire a shot at all. There should be some liaison, some co-ordination, between the two Governments to try to secure agreement on one day or the other. I am not too particular whether the opening date for pheasant is 1st October or 1st November but I would be concerned to secure an agreed date between the two Governments. I would appeal to the Minister to take the matter up with his counterpart in the Six Counties and endeavour to obtain agreement on a date.

All sportsmen are agreed, and I think the Minister and his officials are agreed, that one of the greatest drawbacks to the preservation of game is the poacher. Something will have to be done to eliminate the poacher, particularly the poacher who takes out a firearms licence as distinct from a game licence. In these days of "Killcrow" and other various methods of destroying farm vermin, it should not be necessary for a farmer to have a shotgun for the purpose of destroying vermin. That cheaper type of licence could be eliminated and we should confine all firearms certificates to game licences. In that way we would find the genuine sportsman and hit the poacher.

I do not wish to suggest that a farmer should be prohibited from shooting game on his own land but we should bear in mind that the cheaper firearms certificate given to him does not permit him to shoot game. It merely permits him to carry a firearm and to kill vermin on his own land, provided that land is not within a fixed distance from a public road. By and large, therefore, the cheaper firearm licence has served its purpose in the past but in these days of more advanced methods for the destruction of vermin, we could eliminate this method of destroying vermin, namely, the shotgun.

I would appeal to the Minister, in the interest of the preservation of game and in the interest of tourism, to abolish that cheap firearm licence. I know that, strictly speaking, this is a matter for the Estimate for the Department of Justice. Justice merely administers the law in regard to firearms and my reason for raising it on this Estimate is to make constructive suggestions on the preservation of game.

Some of us who have the privilege of leasing the gaming rights of State forests would like to bring to the notice of the Minister and his officials the lack of shooting rides in these State forests. As the forest grows, the trees grow taller and it is practically impossible to shoot or even to catch a fleeting glimpse of a bird being flushed from the wood. In the old days when landlords developed their own forests and did it particularly for the purpose of game preservation, they ensured that the shooting rides were left sufficiently wide and sufficiently numerous to enable sportsmen to take full advantage of birds flushed on either side of these rides. When we are leasing our State forests to prospective lessees, we should ensure that they will reap the benefit of shooting whatever game may be there.

May I make an appeal to the Minister, and through him to his officials, to ensure that vermin are kept out of these State forests? When the forests are first planted, they are surrounded by a very fine fencing of netting wire but through the years these fences are neglected, with the result that they are broken down in spots; there is no proper maintenance and repair of the fences and vermin abound in these State forests to the disadvantage and the destruction of game that may breed or roost there.

On this question of State forests, particularly in regard to grouse moors, these gorse fires have done a considerable amount of damage. They have burnt birds sitting in their nests. It is a well-known fact that grouse or pheasants which are hatching their eggs will not be flushed even by a fire and will stay there until burned to death. Greater care should be taken, by announcements through the Church, and every other opportunity should be availed of, to impress upon young people the absolute necessity of refraining from starting gorse fires or mountain fires. In our national schools, the importance of this matter could be impressed upon our young people through civics lessons. I am personally aware of the fact that many of these fires are started by schoolchildren inadvertently and thoughtlessly, fires that may do damage to many areas of prospective breeding ground for our grouse.

There is another hazard in these gorse fires. Practically throughout all our gorse moors the ESB have high tension poles and wires running along and one can imagine the havoc which would be wrought by these poles being burned to the ground and the high tension wires being severed. It will be seen, therefore, that gorse fires can do considerable damage not only to the sporting interest of the State but to the economy of the State generally, and the Minister should, through his colleague, the Minister for Education, have instilled in our schoolchildren a realisation of the danger of lighting such fires. Care should also be taken by turf workers who are employed on turf moors, particularly in dry weather.

The Minister referred to the building of houses by the Land Commission. It is true that there are many agencies dealing with the housing problem: the Department of Local Government, the National Building Agency, the local authorities and the Land Commission. Despite all these agencies, we are still lagging behind in the building of houses in rural Ireland. The Land Commission could play a bigger part in the provision of houses. I am not decrying in any way the part they have played but they could do more by means of the scheme suggested by Fine Gael in their programme published some months ago, whereby the Land Commission would build houses for farmers and add the cost to the annuity payable by the various tenants to the Land Commission over a period of, say, 25 years. This would minimise the cost of the house and would enable farmers who have not got capital to build a house to procure a home and to remain on the farm, particularly on the smaller type of farm in the north and north-west of the country.

I know of farmers who are living in hovels. When I say "farmers", I am not comparing the farmers I am thinking of with the farmers of the midlands. I know farmers in Donegal, Mayo, Galway and Kerry who are living in what are no more than hovels, who, through lack of capital, are unable to build their own houses. It may be suggested that these people could procure grants and loans under the SDA from the Department of Local Government to enable them to build their own houses, but they require capital to build the house. It is only when the house is built that the money is procured to discharge the outlay. The Land Commission could play a very important part in this programme of housebuilding by building the houses on the farms, adding the capital outlay, plus the interest, to the annuity payable by the tenant and spreading it over a period of, say, 25 years.

I am very glad to note that over the past few years we have reached our target of 25,000 acres per year for forestry planting. It was in 1948 when the first inter-Party Government came into power that this problem of afforestation was first seriously tackled. Up to that we were planting approximately 4,000 acres per year. I do not say that for the purpose of decrying what Governments did prior to 1948. The pattern of policy was there in afforestation and that pattern was approximately 4,000 acres per year from the late 1920s down to 1948.

In 1948, when the problem was first tackled by the first inter-Party Government, we found one of the really serious handicaps to an expansion in afforestation stemmed from a lack of nurseries and an insufficient supply of seedlings. Nurseries had to be provided before there could be an expansion in afforestation. Those nurseries were built up. Here, I should like to remind the House that nurseries cannot be built up in a year, or two, or three years. Nurseries take time. Nurseries were built up and a target of 25,000 acres was set by the first inter-Party Government in 1950. I am very pleased to learn that over the past three or four years that target has been reached. It is time now, I think, that we set ourselves a new target of 30,000 or 35,000 acres per year. We have the know-how and the experience in growing timber. We know the particular types and varieties which suit this country best.

In passing, let me say that the Forestry Division should not hesitate to grant licences to those who wish to import new varieties from Scotland, Norway or Sweden, varieties they are satisfied scientifically suit this country. This year I sought a licence on behalf of a constituent to import some thousands of seedlings from Scotland. Eventually we got a licence for a limited quantity when it was too late to take advantage of the planting season. There should be a more liberal approach to the granting of licences for the importation of seedlings.

I said we should set ourselves a new target now. We should aim at more than 25,000 acres per year, particularly on the western seaboard. In my native parish of Templecrone, and that area of Donegal known as the Rosses, the parish priest, Deputy Breslin and I invited inspectors from the Minister's Department to come down two years ago and inspect the lands in that area with a view to acquiring them for afforestation. We travelled over thousands of acres and suggested sites which could be acquired for afforestation. The Minister's inspectors were most impressed with the sites we offered. We knew the labour content. Despite the fact that the owners of the lands were agreeable to selling to the Land Commission for afforestation purposes at a nominal rate, not one acre of land was purchased by agreement or acquired for afforestation in the entire Rosses area.

This particular area forms a considerable part of the Fíor-Ghaeltacht. It is an area from which we have the highest percentage of both emigration and migration. Only yesterday I saw three busloads setting off for the potato fields of Scotland from that locality. We cannot provide employment for all there as it is but we could give a considerable number employment if we had State forests in the locality. I appeal to the Minister to consider the acquisition of land in the Rosses area for afforestation. The land may not be ideal. It may not be the best land, but it could be used to provide employment for Irish speakers on the western seaboard in an area in which there is a grave lack of employment now and what might be lost from the point of view of value for afforestation purposes would be gained in other directions. From an economic point of view, it might be much better than land which, on the surface, appears superior.

The Minister said in his speech today that the bulk of forest produce is sold standing and direct employment by the Forestry Division represents only a fraction of the total employment provided in felling and extraction. I take it the Minister has looked into the question of the processing of the produce of our forests. What is being done by way of the establishment of pulp mills throughout the State? That is something that might be considered. I find it difficult to understand the reasons behind some of the industries set up in my own county, such as the veneer factories which have to import all their raw material. Surely we should try to produce ourselves the timber most suitable for these factories? We have many thousands of acres of forests in Donegal, but, when it is a question of supplying the raw material for these veneer factories, we must go to other counties or import from abroad.

There is one final appeal I should like to make to the Minister. The Minister will shortly begin to implement the Land Act, if he has not already done so. When the Act was being discussed here, both the Minister and his predecessor, the former Deputy Blowick, agreed that the conacre tenants of mid and east Donegal had a problem of their own. In the Finn and Lagan valleys, we have a number of cottier tenants who take land each year and cultivate it on a rotational basis— oats, barley, potatoes and so on. I question very much whether these would have the capital, even if land were presented to them, to rotate crops properly. The Minister recognises their problem and the problem of those who let land to them. The problem is peculiar to this particular part of Donegal. I should like the Minister to bear that in mind when he starts administering the latest Land Act.

Mr. Harte

This is a very important debate and, while I have some comments to make, I should prefer not to speak immediately after Deputy P. O'Donnell. I should like to hear a Government spokesman first. There is not a House present and I bring that to your attention, a Cheann Comhairle.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy has been called. I am just reminding him that, if he does not take his call, he will lose it.

Mr. Harte

I would like a house, Sir.

Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted, and 20 Members being present,

Mr. Harte

Last week we had in this House what was described as the collapse of the Agricultural Estimate. While I must apologise to the Fianna Fáil Deputies for bringing them back to the House, particularly during their leisure hours, I feel it is the obligation of the Government to provide a House and it should not be left to Opposition Deputies.

This is an important Estimate. I should like to take this opportunity of wishing the new Parliamentary Secretary every success in his post. I hope he will consider favourably propositions put forward from this side of the House and will try to view from a new angle the mistakes made in the past by Ministers of different Governments. The constituency I represent, NorthEast Donegal, is peculiar in that it contains both fertile land and barren land. The Land Commission concentrate their efforts on trying to acquire in the Lagan and Finn Valleys large holdings for division. The new Parliamentary Secretary should seriously consider the disposal of holdings for re-division on merit and not on the basis of political affiliation. Every Deputy, particularly on the Opposition benches, suspects, and is very often right, that certain individuals close to Ministers in the present Government use influence to try to get themselves a smallholding.

Mr. J.J. Collins

That is a cheap remark.

Mr. Harte

It is no cheaper than the action of the Ministers who do it. It is a fact. I welcome the Fianna Fáil Deputies into the House to speak on this. I had to speak immediately after Deputy P. O'Donnell, which is an indication of the interest they are taking in this Estimate. When such things happen in the Land Commission it is despicable. I hope the new Parliamentary Secretary will keep this in mind when the occasion first arises for him to dispose of land.

I should like to see farmers' sons, who have grown up to know the land, seriously considered when land is being divided rather than have the system of migration to which the Land Commission adhere at present. The people who exist on very small holdings in West Donegal are anxious to get land in East Donegal. The people of East Donegal are not against them coming across. We in East Donegal recognise that, if some of the people in East Donegal had to earn a living in West Donegal, they would probably die of starvation. Nevertheless, farms given to people from the less fertile areas become in a few years derelict Land Commission holdings. I sincerely believe this is not because the person who got the farm was not anxious to make a success of it, but simply because he had not grown up on the land. Perhaps his son or grandson would work that farm a lot better.

Maybe it could be argued that the present approach, viewed over the long-term, is the right one. If agriculture is to take its rightful place in the economy of this country, every acre of land must produce to the maximum. Therefore, it is contradictory to put in a person who does not know the land, and who has to live on that holding for a number of years before he really gets to know the land, and is in a position to earn a living from it. It may be bad politics to say this, but I feel it is one of those things which a person in public life thinks about and very often refuses to say. I am saying it not by way of criticism of the people who received holdings from the Land Commission in the past, but rather by way of fair criticism, and I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will take note of it.

When it is the duty of the Land Commission to work with the Office of Public Works or the local authority in relation to road building into or from a particular holding, I have very often remarked that one authority works from one end of the road and the other authority from the other end, the money runs out before they meet, and there is a piece of land in between with no road whatsoever. This seems to be a very stupid step on the part of the Land Commission, or the Office of Public Works, or the local authority. In regard to Donegal County Council, such problems have been brought to my notice in different parts of the constituency. It is a very frustrating job for a public representative to go to the local authority and state his case, because he is then pushed off to the Land Commission and they then state their case. He is then referred to the Office of Public Works and they state their case. He is then back where he started. It is not a case of: "Keep right on to the end of the road," but stopping somewhere in the middle. Possibly many other Deputies have the same problem. I know there is some link missing and, again, the Parliamentary Secretary coming from a constituency which could loosely be described as comparable with mine, probably has had the same problem in the past. Now that he is in a position to correct this situation, he might avail of the opportunity.

Forestry is an industry which has a great potential, but since Deputy P. O'Donnell has covered this matter fully, little is left for me to say except that in the past fortnight or three weeks in the Mulroy forest in Donegal, situated between Ramelton, Milford and Rathmullen, forestry workers have approached me and told me that rumours are circulating—and there seems to be some truth in the rumours—that men would be laid off. It seems that the Forestry Division have not acquired the amount of land they should have acquired to keep these people in employment.

Forestry is a good investment. It is an investment whereby in certain parts of a constituency such as mine where there are pockets of very bad land, that land can be put into production by the planting of trees, and in years to come that land will play its part in the economy of the nation. At the same time, the people who plant the trees and maintain the forests while the trees grow into maturity are kept in employment. I know some married men with five, six or seven in family who are faced with dismissal at the moment simply because, as they are told, there is no land to plant. I visited some of the forests, and one of the workers pointed out to me that a forest which was planted some ten years ago would now need to be properly drained, that it could do with better fencing, and that steps could be taken to protect it against fire, or in the event of a fire starting that it could be brought under control quite easily by adopting the principles which the Forestry Division do adopt. They seem to have overlooked the fact that it is necessary to do this in this particular forest.

Forestry in itself is a great asset. While possibly a young man in public life should not refer to such things as this, I feel that if we had been as mature in the early 'twenties as we appear to be in the 'sixties, and if all the money that was spent fighting amongst ourselves had been invested in an enterprise such as afforestation this could now be a very wealthy nation. As Deputy P. O'Donnell pointed out, we have two veneer factories in Donegal. It is a terrible thing that in a county like Donegal where land is available for afforestation, where there is unemployment, where there are men ready and willing to work, money was not put into forestry many years ago. If that had been done, instead of the veneer factories importing timber to Donegal, there would be enough timber in the county to keep those two factories in production. I suppose we must all learn from the past. While it is easy for a young public representative like me to criticise the people in those years, perhaps there were circumstances prevailing at the time which are completely beyond my imagination, but looking at it in retrospect, it would appear to me that had we taken those steps during those years this industry would be much larger than it is today.

I feel that those who work in the forests, particularly in my constituency, should get better consideration. I know of certain forests where forestry workers are engaged in planting and maintenance and I know that on a cold winter's day these men leave their homes at 7.30 a.m. and do not return until 5 or 6 o'clock in the evening. They are expected to do an honest day's work for an honest's day's pay, but I feel the conditions in which they have to eat during these hours are something to which the Parliamentary Secretary should pay attention.

I remember, about three years ago, making representations to the Forestry Division on behalf of certain forestry workers in Donegal in relation to conditions under which they were expected to work. While I received co-operation and courtesy from the officials in the Forestry Division, I did not meet with any great success. It would seem to me that, while civil servants are courteous people and while they treat public representatives with the utmost respect, the ultimate view they have in mind is to get people out of the office as politely and nicely as possible without giving any thought to the problems which these public representatives present to them. I do not wish to make this a general statement, but it happens. The result of my representations was that the complaints of these workers met with no great success, even though I tried to persuade some of the higher officials in the Parliamentary Secretary's office to give due consideration to their case.

At that time, I was invited one very cold winter's day to visit a hut where these workers had to eat during the cold weather. I could not help thinking that, had I seen this on television and had these workers their backs to me so that I could not see the colour of their faces, this was happening in Africa. In this island which we call Ireland, an island nurtured in Western European standards and which has played a major part in the development of the world, it is a terrible thing that in 1965 workers are expected to tolerate conditions such as these in the middle of winter.

In conclusion, I should like to take this opportunity to wish the Parliamentary Secretary well in his new post. He was one of the first Deputies I got to know in 1961 when I understand both he and I were elected for the first time to this House. I have always found him very friendly. I think the only time we disagreed was on a political score. I know it is in him to do well.

Seán Ó Ceallaigh

Marach an cúpla rud a dubhairt an Teachta Ó h-Airt, ní éireoinn chun mo bhéal a oscilt ar an Meastachán seo. B'é an chéad ghearáin a bhí aige ná gur ritheadh an Meastachán Talmhaíochta tríd an Teach seo nuair a bhí codladh an traona air féin agus ar a Phairtí. Do b'fhéidir, ámh, go raibh obair ní ba thábhachtaí ar siúil acu i seomra a Phairtí féin.

Is í an tarna casaoid a bhí aige ná go raibh Airí áirithe ag bhronnadh talaimh ar dhaoine go raibh tuairimí poilitíochta Fhianna Fáil acu. Chuir sé ionadh agus alltacht orm go mbeadh sé de dhánaíocht ag Teachta óg nó aosta a rá nár thug breithimh agus cigirí na Roinne ón duine is ísle cothram na Féinne do gach éinne is cuma cad iad na tuairimí poilitíochta a bhí aige.

Is í an tríú casaoid a bhí aige go rabhthas ag aistriú feirmeoirí go bhfuil gabhaltais bheaga acu ó Ghaeltacht Thir Chonaill ar immeallbhord na fairrge, is go rabhthas ag tabhairt feirmeacha dhóibh ins na macairí méithe cois Abha an Lagáin. Ní dócha gur airigh sé trácht riamh ar ré na Planndála. Ba mhaith liom a chur in iúil dó gur bronnadh an talamh ar an dream ar leo é, gur caitheadh amach iad gan cabhair gan cóir, gur mhaireadar tamall faoi bhrannra an bhróin, gur bheannaigh na Flaithis go ceannsa dhoíbh.

Is mithid agus is ró-mhithid do Rialtas na tíre seo sliocht na nGaedeal d'aistriú óna sléibhte agus na carraig-reacha agus cuid d'oidhreacht a sinnsir a thabhairt thar nais dóibh.

Rinne sé tagairt don chogadh cathardha a bhí ar siúl sa tír seo breis agus dachadh bliain ó shoin agus an diomailt airgid a bhain leis. Molfhainn do gach Teachta idir óg agus aosta dearmad a dhéanamh ar an searús, an fuath agus an bhformad a bhain leis an ré sin agus a n-aigne do dhíriú ar conas is fearr cúrsaí na tíre do chur chun cinn do chum glóire Dé agus onóra na h-Éireann.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): While the Land Bill was going through the House, and during the course of the recent general election, the speeches made by the Minister and others from his side of the House tended to create the impression that under the new Bill, by virtue of its provisions, the distribution of land would be speeded up very considerably. The impression was given that we would not now have any more delays in the Land Commission and that people who had been waiting for land for many years would not now have to wait much longer. That line of argument and that line of speech is all very well if it does good and if there is in fact a speeding up in the acquisition and division of land, but, if the delays go on and if the acquisition and distribution of land is not speeded up, then the Minister's speech and the speeches of his friends will do more harm than good because they will have created a frustration in the country. They will have frustrated the small farmers who are hoping and looking forward to acquiring economic holdings.

My own opinion is that under the law, as it stood prior to the coming into operation on 9th March this year of the Land Act, there was fairly adequate machinery for acquiring and distributing land. The trouble then was that the Land Commission had not adequate staff, that they were short of personnel to give effect to the wishes of the Land Commission. I have heard nothing in the Minister's speech about any proposal to acquire further staff or about any proposal to get sufficient personnel to speed up acquisition and, when the land has been acquired, to speed up the distribution of land. I should like the Minister to tell us whether in fact he has any such proposals in mind and to tell us whether he considers he has adequate staff at his disposal to give effect to the wishes of the uneconomic holders to become economic holders. If the Minister tells us he has sufficient staff, then I should like him to tell us why the delays occur. If he admits the staff at present at his disposal is inadequate, I should like him to tell us what steps he proposes to take to become properly staffed.

There is a point I should like to make about the work of the Land Commission in preparing holdings for handing over to new tenants and new owners. I am very strongly of the opinion that holdings, before they are handed over, should be properly fenced and that above all the means of access to these holdings should be properly made. These passes or lanes should be made on land in such a way that they will not lead to trouble between neighbours. I feel more could be done in this respect. Neighbours become unfriendly with each other in some cases because of the way in which these passes, as I will call them, are laid out. They become bad neighbours and this leads to all sorts of trouble. I should hate to think that the activity of an important Department of State like the Land Commission should result in that sort of thing. I also believe the Land Commission should, in co-operation with the Department of Local Government, for example, decide on whom the responsibility lies for the maintenance of these passes and also for the maintenance of bridges on some of these passes.

I know an estate which was divided up not so long ago and distributed between a number of uneconomic holders, where the only means of access for six or seven people is a bridge from the county road. I believe that bridge was made by the Land Commission and was left in such a condition that within a few years it broke down. It now appears to be nobody's business to repair that bridge. The county council say it is not their obligation; the Land Commission say they have washed their hands of it. There are seven people using that bridge. Some of them do not mind whether it is ever repaired; the others want it repaired; and there the matter lies. The Minister should use his influence with his Department, or with some of his colleagues, to see that this sort of situation does not arise and, when it does arise, that it is solved.

The Minister has power, under the Land Act which has just been passed to deal with rights of way. The Land Commission should use all the powers they have to see that access to holdings is imprroved, that people can get in and out of their holdings with some degree of comfort. I am firmly convinced that the fact that people have to travel from the main road through impassable laneways is one of the chief causes of the flight from the land, particularly, when, year after year, nothing is done about them. County councils, the Land Commission and the Department of Local Government do not do anything about them.

I should like to say a few words about the operation of the Land Act, 1963. There are some sections of this Act which I hope the Minister will never operate. I speak with particular reference to section 27.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I am afraid we cannot have a discussion on legislation on this Estimate. The Deputy is entitled to refer to the administration of the Act but criticism of the legislation does not arise.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): I do not propose to seek an amendment of the legislation. I propose only to speak about the operation of the Act as it stands.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I assumed the Deputy was proposing an amendment to the legislation.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

He was going to give the Minister advice.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): I wish to advise the Minister not to use section 27, although he has it. It is a section which enables the Minister to send down an inspector to inspect land for the purpose of acquisition. That is one section which I hope the Minister will use very lightly, so lightly that we will not know it is there. He will only be following in the footsteps of his predecessors since the foundation of the State if he does not use it at all.

There are other sections of this Act which I would urge the Minister to get working on. Under section 5 of the Act, the Land Commission are enabled to advance money for the purchase of land to certain types of persons, but that section applies only to congested districts. Under section 7 of the same Act, people in one part of the country who are given land have to pay double the annuity that people would pay if they came from another part of the country. In other words, if a person from a congested district is given land outside that congested district, he will now have to pay only half the annuity that an allottee from a non-congested district pays. As I have said, the Land Commission are not permitted to advance money to enable persons to purchase land outright, unless those persons come from congested districts. The Minister can solve all that without any amendment of the legislation as it stands by exercising his right to make regulations under section 4 of this Act whereby he can extend the Schedule to the Act. Under the Schedule, the congested districts at the present time are the counties of Donegal, Galway, Kerry, Leitrim, Mayo, Roscommon, Sligo, portions of County Clare and portions of West Cork.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That seems to be very like advocating an amendment of the present Act.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): With respect, under section 4, the Minister has power to extend the Schedule by regulation, without coming before either House of the Oireachtas.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Criticism of legislation is not in order on the Estimates. The Deputy may refer to the administration of the Act but criticism of the Act is not in order now.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): I bow to your ruling, Sir. I strongly urge the Minister, in the administration of this Act, to make an Order to bring the county of Cavan within the definition of congested area. I am in no way criticising this Act which has within itself a provision to enable the Minister to extend sections 5 and 7 to other counties. I think the reason subsection (b) of section 4 was put into the Act was to enable the Minister to extend and apply section 5 and section 7 to the counties which require it. I am not criticising the provisions of the Act. I am asking the Minister to exercise his rights under this section and I say that I shall certainly criticise him further in a year's time, D.V., if he has not by then included the county of Cavan in the list of congested districts.

The reason I am asking the Minister to do that is that I think the county of Cavan is a county where there is considerable congestion and I think the county of Cavan is a county which is deserving of at least as generous treatment as that given to the county of Roscommon. I propose to compare these two counties, townland by townland and I say that it is not unreasonable that the Minister should exercise his powers under section 4 of this Act to make sure that a farmer from County Cavan will not have to pay double the annuity a farmer from the county of Roscommon would pay who gets a farm outside those counties. I am asking the Minister to use his powers under this Act to ensure that the Land Commission can lend money for the same purpose to a farmer from County Cavan as to a farmer from County Roscommon. I do not think that that is an unreasonable plea or an unreasonable attitude. I hope that, when we have an opportunity of discussing the administration of the Department of Lands in this House again, the Minister will have met my appeal on that issue.

The only other matter I want to deal with in a general way concerns the forestry section of this Vote. I think the planting of trees and the development of State forests should be speeded up. In many counties there are vast areas and areas not so vast that are quite suitable for planting. Part of the trouble here is that the Forestry Division, as a matter of policy, are not inclined to plant an area unless it is a substantial area. This is wrong for a number of reasons. There are pockets of land here and there, perhaps not so large, that are suitable for planting. It would serve a dual purpose if they were planted: it would improve the scenic attraction of the country and would develop and put into production these small pockets of land which are otherwise useless.

Mr. Clinton

I did not intend to make a speech on this Estimate. I want to refer to a farm in County Dublin that was offered to the Land Commission last August. I notice that the intake of land in the past year has been something in the region of 45,000 acres and that this is a record for any year during the post-war period.

I wonder whether there are any targets in the Department of Lands in relation to the purchase of land. Is it the policy to purchase the maximum amount of land each year or is it the intention that a certain fixed amount of land will be purchased, or as near as possible to a predetermined amount?

It is desirable that some target should be set and that we should have some sort of a time limit for the division of whatever land it is intended to divide in the future. We should have some target for the consolidation of holdings and we should have a scheme for inducing people to offer their lands for consolidation purposes. Frequently, people come to me very quietly and confidentially, and say: "I have a small bit of land, as you know. Tell me, do you think, if I offer it to the Land Commission, would it be possible that I might get an economic holding some place else in the county or some place else in the country, or is this a dangerous thing to do? If they know I am in this frame of mind, will they come and take the farm off me altogether, leaving me with nothing?"

The intentions of the Land Commission in relation to consolidation and resettlement should be advertised so that it is made known that where there is a possibility in a locality of making a viable holding by putting two or three holdings together, we are anxious to do that, that we shall enter into negotiations for the purpose of bringing these holdings together to make one economic holding and that we shall explore the possibility of giving the people who surrender small holdings acceptable farms in some other area. We should make it known as well that there should be no fear attached to this proposed transaction —that if the people who offer the small bit of land are not satisfied with the Land Commission's final offer, they can withdraw their offer and that no harm is done to anybody.

I do not know what the intentions of the Land Commission are. My view is that they are not trying to buy the maximum amount of land and that consequently they have not got the maximum amount of land for allocation throughout the country. We in the Dublin Health Authority offered to the Land Commission as late as last August a farm of between 600 and 700 acres. It was only recently that the Land Commission started again to make some inquiries. I do not think any private person could expect to buy land if it took that long to make a decision. I do not see how the Land Commission can ever hope to buy in competition with other would-be purchasers, if it takes that long.

Here, the Land Commission proceeded on the assumption that one of the parties to the transaction is a State body and the other is a semi-State body and that once the land is offered, the Land Commission can go ahead and purchase. The fact that they have not purchased before now is perhaps due to the fact that the Land Commission have decided this land is safe in any case because it is being offered to them by a semi-State body and that no outside offer is likely to be considered. I do not think this procedure can be followed in the competitive buying of land. It has left us with a period of waiting, of uncertainty and of anxiety for the people who are employed on that farm. It is a period of anxious waiting also for the smallholders adjoining these lands who hope to have their farms brought up to an economic standard as a result of the breaking up of this large holding.

There are those, too, who feel that for one reason or another they are entitled to get new farms from this estate. My view is that local needs at all times should be met first before we think of bringing migrants from outside, because it is always the cause of considerable trouble and the local people are always dissatisfied because they want to stay there. They are people who are equipped to make the best out of land in their locality. Those uneconomic holders in the area feel the only thing left for them is to get out if there are no prospects for them in the area.

I do not think we should decide to give land to sons of farmers who have not got land themselves. They do not know how to use the land. I should like to refer to a particular farm in an area where very intensive agriculture is engaged in, where there is a tremendous tradition of market gardening and all that kind of skilled farming. People in such areas should be looked after and when it comes to the distribution of this farm, I suggest to the Minister that he looks after those people, all of whom have special skills, all of whom know how to make the best use of the land through intensive farming. There are many cottage-holders in the area who could make quite a good living from small allotments, far better than from larger areas elsewhere in the country.

I was glad to see the amount of money being provided for farm buildings and other improvements on farms. However, the increase is hardly sufficient to give many extra or much more elaborate farm buildings because the cost of building has rocketed in recent times. If there is anything more than another which makes a holding economic, it is adequate and up-to-date farm buildings. Many holdings in the country are uneconomic because there was insufficient capital invested in them in the past by way of adequate, up-to-date farm buildings.

Another matter I should like to refer to relates to the Forestry Division, which is being discussed with this Estimate. There is a considerable area in County Dublin under forestry. These localities are used in the summer time for recreation purposes and there is a grave danger at all times of serious forest fires. The Minister should send out an earnest appeal to all concerned to take all possible precautions. He should see also that proper fire-fighting arrangements are available. In fact, I think fire-fighting is almost hopeless when the fire gets going in a forest, but we should have more people traversing the areas, particularly at weekends, to see that fires do not get started and that a big national investment is not destroyed overnight.

In relation to production from our forests, I should like to inquire what advance plans have been made for the processing of this timber, how adequate is the industry we have and what have we in mind for the future in the form of pulp mills. I know it takes an enormous quantity of timber to feed even one up-to-date pulp mill, that a pulp mill represents a very heavy investment indeed. I wonder if a calculation has been made regarding the quantities of timber likely to come to maturity in, say, a period of five to ten years and are we satisfied that the industrial proposals before us are adequate to deal with this quantity of timber? It is a very important industry. I have seen it in other countries and I have seen the amount of employment it gives and the very great income that can accrue from it.

Where there are areas of land unsuitable for farming and which cannot be made suitable at an economic price, we should forge ahead with forestry. Any areas which may be drained should not be used for this purpose but for agriculture. There are vast areas still unplanted and many waste patches which could be and should be utilised for afforestation.

Mr. Donnellan

I propose to say a few words on behalf of farmers with uneconomic holdings in Galway and particularly in East Galway. Sometimes one is asked by a farmer or a group of farmers to make representations to the Land Commission to acquire a holding with a view to its division. In most cases a printed reply is sent to such a request which says that the representations have been received and the application noted for consideration with, of course, the claims of all the other applicants. There is little satisfaction in that and it is little good to anybody who asks you to make representations on his behalf to see that he gets a few acres from a farm that is being divided or has been acquired by the Land Commission. I have one farm in particular in mind and that is the Blake Estate of Ballyglunin about which there has been a lot of talk. Did the Land Commission acquire it or did they buy it? They bought it at a very opportune time, previous to the East Galway by-election. If the Land Commission intended to buy this land they should not have done so for political purposes. In my opinion this land was used for that purpose.

A certain Deputy from East Galway saw fit to send letters to many people, who were expecting land on that estate, stating that he would give them a certain portion of the land. I do not agree with the Land Commission's policy in taking up farms, big or small, previous to elections. They should take up those farms in the middle of a Dáil term, assuming that the Dáil will last for five years. In most cases they have been asked thousands of times to acquire those lands and they should not take them up just prior to an election in the hope that they will gull some of those people who expect to get land on those estates.

I would ask the Land Commission to provide extra staff in County Galway. I am not very familiar with how the rest of the country stands as regards acquisition and division but there is complete chaos in County Galway. In one place, Garrafrauns, there is a man who is grazing approximately 300 acres and there are very many farmers with uneconomic holdings in the area. I would urge the Minister to look into those problems. They are problems which concern us in the west, particularly in my area. I would urge the Minister also to pay full price for land acquired for afforestation. I do not think that the full price is being paid. People who give up land for this purpose are usually farmers existing on the smallest possible incomes. They give up a few acres which are useless to them because the land has very heavy soil or because the land is too wet to use for livestock or anything like that and they really deserve to get the full price.

Mr. Moran

I should like to make one matter quite clear at the outset because evidently there is a misunderstanding on the part of Deputy Lindsay and some others about the relationship between the cost of administration in my Department and the money being expended by the Department for its purposes. Obviously, they have overlooked the fact that there is a very large amount of land acquired and paid for in bonds which are not referred to in this Estimate at all. There is also the question of the collection of a large sum in annuities.

As far as the land bond side of the business is concerned, Deputies will recollect that recently we passed a Land Bonds Act providing for the creation of £10 million more land bonds for the purpose of dealing with the relief of congestion. In the year with which we are concerned here, in voluntary purchase cases, £1.5 million was paid in land bonds for approximately 19,300 acres and there was £.4 million in land bonds paid for 7,600 acres acquired under the compulsory powers of the Land Commission. Therefore, Deputies will see that outside the figures I have mentioned there is also a very substantial amount of land acquisition going on in the Land Commission which is financed by land bonds. Therefore, it is not a proper method of comparison to take cash figures given here and the administrative costs because in that way you get a lopsided picture of the administrative costs in the job being dealt with here.

Deputy O.J. Flanagan complained that not enough is being done and not enough being provided and, of course, he has much the same story every time we come into this House with the Estimates. The fact remains that the figures disclosed here are record figures. The amount of land acquired in the last year is a record one in the post-war period. That could not have been done without the very substantially increased money that was made available in the last year and is now being made available for Land Commission purposes.

I do not propose to waste any time dealing with the Deputies who were talking about what is not being done under the Land Act, 1965, which, due to their efforts, only became law on 9th March of this year. Suffice it to say that there is provision made in this Estimate for proceeding with the various aspects of the work provided for under the new Land Act. If the estimate here is not sufficient, I shall be coming back to the House again, if we can get the Land Commission geared in the time that we now have this year to operate fully these sections with which the Deputies are now familiar. At all events, under the different subheads of this Estimate, provision is being made to operate these various sections. I have said in my opening statement that the regulations to be made under the Act for the operation of some of these sections are in hand. These things take time.

Some Deputies, including Deputy Flanagan, have complained that there is not sufficient staff in the Land Commission on the inspectorate side. I am well aware that there is not a sufficient number to deal with the increased activity envisaged under the Land Act, 1965, and we are endeavouring to recruit men as quickly as we possibly can.

Deputies are no doubt aware of the difficulty of getting qualified staff, particularly engineers, for the Land Commission and for other State Departments at this time. At all events, we are trying to build up a suitable staff. For the reason of shortage of staff, until we are fully geared under the new reorganisation, the new scheme of things in the Land Commission, some of the new functions of the Land Commission under the Act of 1965 may have a slow start this year. However, we are hoping for the best and as soon as we are able to get geared for the job I have no doubt that the congested areas will reap the full benefit of the provisions of that Act for the relief of congestion.

Deputy Flanagan suggested that there was no provision made in this Estimate for additional staff. I would advise him to re-read the Estimate. There is a figure of £20,000 in the official estimate for additional staff. I have never suggested that we are properly staffed to deal with these increased activities. All that we can say is that with the staff available the record of the Land Commission during the year under review, in comparison with former years, has been a very creditable one. I want to pay tribute to all the staff concerned here and now, particularly those on the executive side, for endeavouring to carry the work load that this has entailed over the last year. They have been carrying on work in respect of a very expanded field of activity and many of them have done that outside official hours. Indeed the job could not have been done without their enthusiasm for the work and their taking on other work as well. We hope, however, to be able to try to spread the work load as soon as we get the staff which we are now seeking.

I have not received any of the complaints referred to by Deputy Flanagan about outoffices. We think that the outoffices now being provided are a vast improvement on those formerly provided by the Land Commission. There are divided views as to the distance that these outoffices should be located from the farmhouses, in the new scheme of things. If the out-offices are put too far from the residences some of the people will object. Speaking for myself, I have an open mind on the matter. If I find any body of opinion amongst the recent migrants who have got the new houses with new outoffices, that the location and type are unsuitable, we can have another look at the matter before the Estimate comes before the House next year.

The question of grants for fencing has been raised by some Deputies. There are, as Deputies are aware, provisions for these purposes, and pretty substantial provisions, under the Department of Agriculture. These new provisions for fencing, particularly in congested mountain areas, are now being widely availed of, which is the surest indication that the provisions made by the Department of Agriculture are suitable in this field. At all events, as far as migrants' holdings are concerned, the Land Commission do a pretty good job and in the budget for improvement grants for estates we have not skimped in any way.

The older Deputies and more experienced Deputies will realise that a large part of the Land Commission's work falls under the heading of improvements. The amount for improvements in this Estimate and in the Estimate for every year forms a substantial part of the main Estimate. A vast amount of improvement work is done. In rearrangement cases there is in some cases, apart from housing, rehabilitation of the land being carried out by the Land Commission. This is a new departure on the improvement side of the Land Commission budget, and a desirable one. In many cases, as Deputies are aware, the lands being acquired by the Land Commission, particularly in congested areas, are lands that have a history of bad user over a great number of years, lands that may have been let by former absentee owners for very long periods. As we all know, such lettings have always resulted in the mining of the land concerned of its fertility.

The Land Commission have found in some cases that the land acquired was in such poor heart that it was necessary to rehabilitate it before having it allocated to the successful applicants. It is a new departure in Land Commission thinking and one which I personally wish to encourage because I have seen the very poor condition of some of the land that has been acquired, mainly in compulsory acquisition cases, and I know how very necessary it is to put the land in good heart and to rehabilitate it so as to make it of real benefit to those who get it.

In the main, in these cases we are dealing with people on uneconomic units who would not have the necessary capital, and in some cases the necessary help, to embark on rehabilitation even with the existing grants on a comprehensive scale and whereas this type of land is not the general run that comes into the Land Commission it does comprise a certain portion of it and on the improvement side the Land Commission also endeavour to do something with this type of land before handing it over to the persons concerned.

As Deputies know, under the improvement vote, the Land Commission also carry out road work, drainage work, fencing and so on. In some cases they expect the allottees to do some of the fencing themselves but, if they do, they give them an allowance for it. This whole business entails very heavy subsidisation in each and every case and it is not too much for the Land Commission to expect that successful applicants for land, particularly in rearrangement cases, should contribute something themselves if it is only by way of free labour, towards a proper fencing of these lands when they get them. One way or another, the Land Commission try to ensure, where there is a rearrangement scheme, that the lands concerned are reasonably fenced for the incoming allottees.

With regard to the allegations made by Deputy Flanagan and some other Deputies about purchases of land by foreigners they again overlook the provision of the law under the Land Act, 1965 that no purchase of land by a non-national can go through, with the exceptions set out in the section of the Act, without the consent of the Land Commission. It would appear from some allegations that were made here that Deputies have not read that particular provision, but that provision is there. Let me say, in passing, to those who continue to make these rather startling allegations about alleged purchases of the country by non-nationals, that the figure runs annually and has run over a number of years, at the figure I have given in the House, that is roughly 6,000 or 7,000 acres; that some of these transactions are between the same class of people and that it is no national menace. It is, I know, quite a popular political allegation to make to suggest that there is a tremendous part of the country being taken over by foreigners and that such lands are being taken by them at the expense of our own congests. Figures show that that is not so and, at all events, no land can now be purchased by a non-national without his obtaining the Land Commission's consent.

Let me say to Deputy Lyons from my own constituency that it is not the Land Commission's practice to interfere with the hardworking young man who goes away for a couple of years to make a few pounds in England to restock his land or improve his circumstances. Indeed in every case that I have ever come across, either as Minister for Lands or before I came into this House, where any absentee owner, of the type that Deputy Lyons and myself know so well in the west, indicates to the Land Commission, even when the case has got to the stage of compulsory acquisition, that he is prepared to come back even within a year—in some cases, they are given two or three years—the Land Commission do not proceed with the acquisition of the land.

Invariably where the Land Commission move against these vacant holdings, they have been left for a great number of years. The intention at the moment is to take cases where there have been lettings for a period of over five years, but in any case in which there are any particular family circumstances which indicate that there is a reason for the land being let, the Land Commission do not interfere. Even in cases where there has been a very bad history of land user, provided the man concerned is prepared to take over, to come back and live on the land and work it, the Land Commission allow him to do so. I have no hesitation in assuring the Deputy that that practice will be continued by the Land Commission.

Many of these fears have been aroused in people's minds by misinterpretation, deliberately or otherwise, of the recent land law passed by this House. Anybody connected with the Land Courts or the practice in them knows quite well that what I am saying has always been the practice of the Land Commission. Indeed many people complain that the Land Commission have been too lax and too sympathetic in this regard but it is far better that they should take that point of view than the other.

Some Deputies have raised the matter of commonages and unproductive land that should be taken over. It is true to say that until now there was an amount of difficulty on the Land Commission side in regard to acquiring commonages. I agree that the day has come when commonages like cow-parks, in many instances, have become an anachronism and there is less and less use for them. It comes down to the old business where a number of owners are concerned with the commonage; be the commonage good or bad, none of them is prepared to do anything by way of improving the commonage for the very selfish reason —perhaps it is a good reason, depending on how one looks at it—that it would benefit the others rather than himself. In any case, there is provision in the Land Act of 1965 which would facilitate dealing with commonages by the Land Commission. There are provisions to get over many of the legal difficulties that arose where the Land Commission were trying to take over commonages compulsorily and exercising their compulsory powers at the request of probably 50 per cent or more of the common owners. Under some of the new provisions, where some of the owners of the undivided shares cannot be ascertained, it is possible to appoint a person who nominally will serve as the legal means of dealing with the missing person's share of the compensation. It will enable the Land Commission to deal more effectively with commonages.

In many cases commonages could be vastly improved and I have no doubt that if they were divided, they would be vastly improved, and this is part of the Land Commission's work which I hope will go ahead quickly from now on. I am aware of a demand for dealing with these commonages and through the new provisions, we shall be able to enable those concerned to have a partition of the commonage so that they can make effective use of them when they get their own shares.

I have found from experience, unlike what Deputy Lindsay seemed to think on the question of bands, that in very many cases there are no bands provided for these commonages. In the old County Court days, a very common action in the country was over a band but there have been none for many years now. Where these old bands or old agreements were established, they are either lost in antiquity or unenforceable.

Mr. Lindsay

They are still very active in some parts of the country. There was a case five years ago.

Mr. Moran

They are few and far between. I have not come across any in recent times. At all events, in these times the demand I am getting from those concerned is for partition of these commonages, for division of them and even a partial division or partition of them, and I think that will be the trend from now on. As Deputies are aware, new methods have been discovered for improving commonages, particularly for sheep, at comparatively small expense, providing trace elements that will enable those concerned to raise the carrying capacity and even quadruple it in some instances. Therefore, the demand for partition and division increases.

On the game side of the Department, Deputies are aware that this development started in comparatively recent times. In this case also it is necessary for the Department to build up a game section and to get experienced men with the necessary know-how both to advise game councils and to carry on the work that has been started with the regional game councils throughout the country. I am satisfied a lot of useful work has been done, mostly confined to the elimination or control of predators and, in some cases, restocking. While those concerned will know that building up stocks of pheasant is simple enough, grouse and partridge raise different problems.

I understand that Deputy P. O'Donnell, who is very interested in this field, suggested there should be gun licence control and that cheap gun licences for farmers should be abolished. Before we come to that stage and before we spend much time considering whether the owners of .22 rifles should also be controlled, we have a lot of spade work to do. In particular, we have a lot to learn on the experimental side in improving habitat conditions in the mountainous areas, particularly for grouse and partridge. We are getting some of our own people trained in this field. We propose to send them abroad to centres we are picking where they will get experience in this field. It is a very specialised field, as those concerned know.

We are only making a start in this country in this development. There is a vast potential for development here, but it is going to take time and patience. I am advised that in many instances in different areas, with grouse in particular, a big part of the difficulty is inbreeding of the species we have. We have other sportsmen claiming that the big difficulty is the type of old heather and that the habitat generally needs looking after. It is our intention—I hope to make a start on it this year—to take some of the derelict shoots in our own forests by way of experiment and see what we can do with them. In that way we can learn as we go along. When the men we are training return to us, they will be able to advise game councils generally, depending on the type of country they have to deal with.

For the money being expended, a very good start has been made. We are making our people game conscious. We have built up a tremendous amount of goodwill with those concerned. I do not want to elaborate on the difficulties and frictions we have in the game movement. They are to be deplored. However, I am hopeful that time, the great healer, will cure them and that recent efforts, made by people who are undoubtedly impartial, will bring the warring elements together. In this field we depend on co-operation from all concerned, both landowners and sportsmen. It will be impossible to make the desired progress unless we can get these people to bury the hatchet and get on with the job. In so far as we can encourage those game councils that are going ahead—some are doing very fine jobs in their areas—we will do so. We will certainly give priority to those game councils that have got together and, instead of talking and grousing— without meaning any pun—are getting on with the job for which they were established. We are making a substantial grant to the people in Dublin because they have to provide a place to import the eggs and deal with the very strict quarantine laws rightly enforced by the Department of Agriculture. They had bad luck some seasons, like everybody else in this business, but we hope they will have better luck in the future in the hatching of the new chicks.

As far as shooting rights in the State forests are concerned, I will look into the point made about shooting rides which, it is alleged, are not wide enough. Generally speaking, the forests are being used by more and more game councils as sanctuaries. I am sure we need more of these. As we become more experienced in this field, we will be able to provide more of them because they will be of considerable value in building up game stocks and a game sense amongst our people.

On the forestry side of our activities, we have succeeded again in reaching the planting target of 25,000 acres. I would draw the attention of Deputies to the very large increase in the number of transactions involved on the intake side of the machine for the purpose of land acquisition for State forests. It is getting larger each year, which is another way of saying that the land units we are getting are getting progressively smaller each year. Considering the type of plantable land that is offered to the Department here, we have done exceedingly well in not alone reaching this target but steadily maintaining it over the past five or six years. Deputies who criticised the efforts of our Department in achieving this figure of 25,000 acres per annum should not overlook the fact that this represents in our circumstances the highest planting rate per head of the population in the whole of Europe. It is completely unrealistic for Deputies and others to ask why should the Department not plant 50,000 acres and double the amount of money being spent in this field. If nothing else, I am a realist and, if we are able to continue at a steady rate of 25,000 acres for the coming five or six years as we have done in the past, then as a country we will be doing very well indeed. It is becoming progressively harder to get large quantities of plantable land.

Deputy P. O'Donnell complained that nothing had come out of a survey by the Forestry Division in the Rosses in the Donegal Gaeltacht. The fact remains that the type of soil there would not support plant life. I say that in the sense that it would not support afforestation. Apart from soil problems, nationally, particularly on the western seaboard and mainly in the Gaeltacht areas, we have problems of exposure and of high wind which are peculiar to our coast. The type of land there, which is mountain or wasteland, is land on which afforestation would not and could not be successful. Because of increased knowledge and experience we are now planting land which 12 or 13 years ago was regarded as unplantable. We are going ahead in Glenamoy, and elsewhere, with experimental planting to discover what species will stand up best to the gales that occur and to the salty Atlantic winds, which provide a problem for us that does not exist in Norway, Sweden and other timber producing countries. Land that could be claimed to be even marginally successful is being planted now.

Four or five years ago, having examined this difficult situation, I thought the Department were a bit conservative, perhaps, in their assessment. I have now come to the view that they are going ahead as rapidly as it is prudent to do in planting these exposed areas. There is the odd pocket in which timber will survive but in the greater proportion of the area trees will not grow, according to our present knowledge. The possibility is that some of the experiments will give us the answers to some of the problems. We have, of course, looked elsewhere for the answers, but we failed to find them because we could not find in any other timber producing country a duplication of the conditions that exist here. We must, therefore, await the results of our own experiments in the saltladen wind exposure areas. We did cope successfully with the soil problem, but the exposure problem is a more difficult one to which we have not really found the answer yet.

I agree with those Deputies who say there is a vast amount of marginal land in the west which would be much more productive than it is if we could get it for afforestation. I have pointed out that we estimate that 40 per cent of our planting programme this year will be done in the west. It has run up to 45 per cent, and above that, in recent years. There are divided views with regard to the potential in the west. I believe there is a vast potential for more afforestation and I hope to initiate a drive to get the necessary intake of land in order to increase afforestation in that area.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

Would the Minister not consider that it would be a great encouragement if the Forestry Division would pay the auctioneers' fees in the same way as the Land Commission do? If the Minister gets the goodwill of the auctioneers anxious to sell land he will get all the land he wants. The Minister should consider that very seriously.

Mr. Moran

I will consider it.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

I am obliged to the Minister.

Mr. Moran

There is a vast difference, of course, between this particular type of land and the type of land to which I apply auctioneers' fees for Land Commission purposes. In many cases the type of marginal land suitable for afforestation is really a liability on its owners but, although they are making very little use of it, they are slow to offer it to the Forestry Division. Where a start is made, however, it makes the people in the area forest minded and more land comes in as time goes on. As Deputies are aware, we have no forestry tradition here. That is equally true in relation to the question of fire prevention. If those who own this marginal land made it available for planting the relief in rates would pay them, apart altogether from considerations of amenity value or the local employment that might result.

I hope we will be able to get a great deal more of this marginal land in the west. Up to the last year or two my Department could afford to wait for land to come on offer. If we are to maintain our planting programme and build up a plantable reserve, we shall have to change that pattern and go out where the potential is. Now Deputies can be of great assistance in this connection by asking the people with whom they are in contact, particularly in the west, to co-operate with the Department by handing over old commonages they are no longer using. Our experience is that one or two will be anxious to hand over these commonages but the others, although not using the commonages, are not prepared to co-operate. Useful public relations work could be done by Deputies who are interested in afforestation by advising those concerned to let the commonages to the Department for afforestation, particularly in those areas where there is not already a forest block.

Figures were quoted by Deputy O. J. Flanagan with regard to the position of foresters. I gave the House the factual position as recently as 27th April in reply to a question by Deputy Corish. I stated then:

Eighty-one foresters are provided with official residences and this number is being expanded as opportunity permits, to meet the needs of the rapidly increasing forestry personnel. At the moment there are four new houses in course of construction, contracts have been placed in respect of three more, and some private houses are the subject of negotiation for purchase.

There are at the moment in the State service approximately 339 foresters. Of those 172 are married men. There are 81 married officers in official residences; 56 of them in modern houses, and 25 in older houses. Of those not in official residences belonging to the Department, 258 foresters are paid allowances in lieu of free housing accommodation. Of that total, only 91 married men are availing of those allowances.

The House will appreciate that with the vastly increased service, there is a vast increase in the number of foresters we now have. The fact also remains that in a great number of cases these foresters are in very isolated districts or areas, where houses are not readily available. I said to Deputy Corish, and I now repeat, that where suitable houses have come on offer, we have tried to purchase them, and we are endeavouring to go ahead in providing new houses, or in building new houses, where we can, step by step in the Department where they are needed.

In the case of the unmarried foresters who get an allowance in lieu of the official residence, so far as I know these men would prefer to be left as they are until such time as they take unto themselves wives. At all events, on the national scene as the new forests are being built up, we are proceeding with the provision of official residences for foresters as quickly as we can. The fact that they are getting these allowances where they are not availing of the residences is an indication that the Department are trying to provide for them. In time residences will become available.

Deputies will appreciate that these foresters are transferred from time to time, for one reason or another, and whereas for a period a man may be in a house with which he is not satisfied, he is not there for the whole of his life. It may be true that in these isolated areas there may be a house without piped water, but there are many of our people living in isolated areas who have not got piped water. There may also be houses in isolated areas without electricity and it may be as has been alleged, that there is the odd forester's house without electricity, but if so, it must be in one of the very backward areas in which there is no reasonable way of providing the electricity service for him.

However, there is new thinking on the location of these houses and we are having another look at the matter. In former times and in other countries, the idea was that a forester was happy to live away up in the middle of the forest, no matter how far it was from what some modern people call civilisation. Whether he was better off up there or down in a village is a matter we could debate for a long time, depending on personal preference. There is a trend now among these men towards wanting their houses located near a centre of population in a village or town where other services are available. My own personal preference would be for the one up in the mountain, particularly if there were fishing nearby, but tastes differ.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

What would happen in that case when the children had to go to school, or the wife had to do her shopping? Naturally the house should be in a village or town.

Mr. Moran

Looking at it in that light and comparing conditions as they are now I wonder how any of us survived with our two sods of turf under our arm some years ago. At all events, inevitably through promotion, or for one reason or another, they are not generally left such an awfully long time in one particular place. They also know this when they take up their jobs. They know the type of life they are putting in for and so far as I know, generally speaking, in this service they are in one of the newest and most expanding services in the State, and the vast majority of them are dedicated men who are very happy with their lot. I observe that in the different areas in which they are located.

It is, of course, true that we have not yet sufficient houses for all of them, and while I have not the figures readily available at the moment, Deputies can see that from other aspects of the increase in the service. The vast increase in this service over the past ten years is not generally appreciated. Because of the vastly increased activities in this field, it is natural that the Department have not, if I may put it this way, caught up with the building demand for young married foresters.

I did not deal fully with the Shannon Valley because a very large sum of money was expended under a special Land Commission scheme to deal with the difficulties of the people in that area. That scheme provided for migration to some of the higher ground. It provided for higher stands for cattle. It provided new farm buildings for some, but notwithstanding the fact that, in my view, it was a very good and attractive scheme, some of the people concerned were not prepared to avail of it, and preferred to stay where they were. A big amount of money—well over £100,000 — was expended on that special scheme to deal with those people. The scheme was never intended to be, and could not be, a solution for the problems of flooding in the Shannon Valley.

The scheme was designed to give temporary relief to the people who suffered most from flooding there. The drainage of the Shannon and afforestation in certain areas will no doubt in the long run deal with the special problems of the Shannon Valley. So far as the Land Commission could solve the special problems of their tenants in the worst of the flooded areas they have done so under the scheme to which I have referred, and with which Deputy Flanagan is very familiar. I think it was the only special scheme of this kind introduced to deal with the special problems of flooded tenants. It dealt with quite a number of those people in a very expensive way, and in so far as they have availed of it, my information is that the scheme has been a success for those concerned.

I answered a question in the House some months ago about the amount of afforestation in the Shannon Valley. I am speaking from memory but I think about 50,000 acres were planted since the Rydell report.

Perhaps it is necessary for me to remind Deputies that before you can plant you must get the land which must be made available for such purposes. We just cannot plant haphazardly where we would like. The prerequisite is with those concerned; the owners of the land must be prepared to co-operate with the Department in handing over the land for planting. I do not suggest for a moment, lest I might be misinterpreted, that afforestation would solve the flooding problem in the Shannon Valley overnight. In time afforestation has the effect (1) of slowing down the rush of water, and (2) of absorption of moisture where there is a considerable amount of afforestation achieved. It is of course, a long-term solution. In any event, it would only have a partial effect on the vast problem of flooding facing the drainage authority in the Shannon catchment area.

Deputy James Tully wants higher gratuities for ex-employees. May I remind the House that in the 1950 Land Act provision for the giving of gratuities to employees was made? They vary in different cases. The question was put to me tonight as to who decides who is to get land and who is not. I do not decide. It is the Land Commission who decide the question as to who is to get land. They in their wisdom pick out those who are to get land and those whom they think should be compensated by gratuity. That particular provision, I remember, was opposed by my Party when we were in opposition in 1950 but was carried with the assistance of the Labour Party at that time. Whether it is right or wrong, it is there. Part of it would, of course, be acceptable to Deputies on all sides of the House. There is the position where stud farms have acquired land and where jockeys and stable boys are employed. I do not think anybody would suggest that they would be people suitable to be allotted holdings on these estates.

This brings me to extending the field in which applications for land should be considered. I have said time and time again that in order to deal with the number of congests we have in the country, even taking 60,000 of them, more land would be required. There is not enough land to go round and the more you extend that particular category by bringing in new categories of landowners the less chance there is in the lifetime of any of us of seeing any solution to the congestion problem. Putting it another way, if you take in one landless man in one of these areas and give him a farm you will leave four or five men in misery in the congested area, who were waiting for one of their members to be migrated so as to give living space to some of them, or a chance to build up an economic unit.

I think on this Estimate, and in debating questions on land in this House, we are being largely unrealistic. It is unnecessary for me to enter into a discussion here as to the type of people who should get land or their qualifications. There is no doubt there are landless men who could make good use of land. Deputies know that in every county in the country, there are people who never own land. They take conacre and build up stock and make a living, perhaps, a precarious one, in that particular way. Considering the extraordinary rents some of these have to pay it is really a miracle how they exist as they do. Nobody who studies this field can give an explanation as to how some of these exist.

Taking one thing and another, they merely exist but they pay in some cases up to £25 or £30 for conacre. Conacre-taking is traditional in Donegal. They have special inbred skills in providing quick cash crops like early potatoes, and so on. Of course, there are some in the south; there are some everywhere. I am emphasising it to make it doubly clear that there is no such thing as the problem being confined to one county or one particular area. You have worthy landless men in every constituency in this country. There are also people in many trades and avocations who, if they got land, would make good use of it. But, it is also true to say that there are many more who, when they got land, made bad use of it and no doubt this will be so again. It is completely unrealistic to try to generalise as to who should or should not get land or what they will do on the land.

Once we depart from the principle of giving priorities in the division of land to congests, then there is no end to the solution of this congestion problem. It is true there is nothing in the law, and let me repeat this again, because I said it so often in putting the Land Act of 1965 through the House, against giving land to a landless man, an artisan, a labourer, a roadworker or anybody else. It is purely a question of priority and if we are to keep our priorities right and make an impact in our time on the solution of the congestion problem, we must cut our cloth according to our measure and try to confine in the main the land pool that is now available or will be available in the foreseeable future to relieve congestion, primarily in the congested counties and then in congested pockets in other counties where they exist.

It is a matter of practice and, putting it bluntly, a matter of purchasing goodwill. The Land Commission have from time to time in the division of large estates given small plots or allotments to locals. In some cases they were justified and good use was made of the land in many cases. In other cases their attitude was not justified and very bad use was made of these plots. It is also true to say you cannot generalise in that field. I have said in examination of this problem on many occasions that the available land, and the land which we can foresee will be available, for this purpose must be earmarked fundamentally for the relief of congests in the congested areas. Otherwise, we can make no impact on this grave national problem.

Mr. Coogan

On the question of conacre, is it not the big man who will outbid the poor man?

Mr. Moran

There are people, in very many cases, who get conacre and pay, in my view, daft prices for it. They are small men. The larger man, in many cases does not bother about this, whether he regards it as uneconomic, because of the price, or not. There are cases in the midlands and the south where people, over a great number of years, have been paying these vast sums for conacre, but they still appear to be making a profit out of it. They have been paying, until recent times, at all events to my own knowledge, £25 or more an acre for what they call wheat land or tillage land. Deputies from the midlands and the south are well aware this practice has been going on. It is quite obvious, I suppose, they would not be paying these sums, unless, through their own hard work, they are able to make a profit from their labour.

I have had deputations of people from areas like those I have described saying they would be very happy to pay the full economic price for any land which the Land Commission would take over because it would be a better proposition for them than if they were mulcted in these very high amounts for conacre land which they were paying. All these deputations which I received have had the same story to tell, so far as the letting of land is concerned. This creates a problem in some counties for the Land Commission, particularly in County Donegal where the people get a living from conacre.

This business of conacre poses a special problem for the Land Commission. That problem was recognised by us and we are endeavouring to devise a method suitable for our operations in Donegal, where they have other peculiarities, to the extent that they are not interested in migration, as they are in other areas. It would surprise Deputies to know that in some of these isolated areas, even though valuations were extremely small and even though conditions were such that some of them must be got out to give a reasonable chance to others those people are not prepared to pay extra for the valuable new migrants' holdings being provided for them.

I believe that attitude is being changed by the younger people who are now coming on and who are prepared to fend for themselves and get out of these land slums. These are the type of progressive people who will take full advantage of the new provision of the Land Act, 1963, the self-migration provision.

Indeed, I am confident that in some of these areas where migration formerly failed, the fact that under this scheme, the progressive farmers in these areas will not have to take any holding provided for them by the Land Commission but will be able to pick a holding of their own, or perhaps one which comes on the market, and certainly with the help of the Land Commission, will enable us to make a big inroad into these problems.

I referred at the beginning to the fact that although the figures I have given indicate this was a record year of activity by the Land Commission, I was not going to comment on those who criticised me for not showing special consideration under the Land Act, 1963, which became law on 8th March of this year. I have no doubt, in due course, I shall be coming to this House to inform them of the progress made under the new provision of that Land Act. I have no doubt that, when we get the machinery going under that Act, it will be of tremendous assistance to the Land Commission in dealing with the age-old problem of the relief of congestion.

Before concluding, I want to thank Deputy Lyons, and to welcome him to the opposite side of the House and to this Dáil on his first appearance here. I should like also to thank Deputy O. J. Flanagan for his congratulations on my reappointment. I should like to return the congratulations to him on his survival on those benches.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

Thank you.

Mr. Moran

I am glad to see him on that side of the House speaking on the Land Commission Estimate. I hope that with the co-operation of all sides of the House for which I have appealed, we will, in the coming year, have a record in both branches of this Department.

Dáil Éireann debate - Tuesday, 4 May 1965

Committee on Finance. - Vote 35—Lands.

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 4 May 1965