asked the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries the reasons why he is satisfied that Section B of the Land Project should not be re-introduced; and if he will now reconsider the matter in view of the financial circumstances of many farmers who are anxious to have work done under this Section.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Land Project.
155.
The following were amongst the reasons which led to the decision taken in 1958 to discontinue Section B of the Land Project:—
(a) it was found that generally the cost of work carried out was very high and that in many cases the improvement effected was not commensurate with the amount of expenditure incurred by the State;
(b) by 1958 the bulk of the work being done under the Land Project was being carried out by the farmers themselves with grant aid under Section A of the project;
(c) it had become obvious that farmers were taking on the less expensive jobs themselves and asking the Department to undertake the more difficult and more expensive jobs in which the cost benefit relationship was less satisfactory;
(d) it was considered that a Government Department was not a suitable organisation for carrying out land reclamation work on an extensive scale and that the responsibility for the reclamation work necessary on his own holding should rest on each individual farmer.
These considerations are as valid today as they were in 1958.
I am satisfied that the grants available under Section A of the Project amounting to two-thirds of the estimated cost of the work, subject to a maximum of £50 per acre in the western counties and £45 per acre in the remainder of the country, offer a sufficient inducement to farmers to undertake reclamation works which they will regard as an economic proposition. I understand that the Agricultural Credit Corporation Ltd. consider favourably applications from farmers for loans to enable them to meet their share of the cost of land reclamation work.
Taking all the circumstances into account, I am not prepared to reintroduce Section B of the Land Project.
156.
asked the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries what steps he proposes to take in the event of one landowner holding up and objecting to a drainage proposal under the Land Project in a case where there is a joint application by several local farmers all of whose lands are seriously flooded; and if he will take steps to see that there must be serious grounds for such hold-up and that the work should be undertaken for the benefit of the community.
I know of no specific legal powers which would give to a farmer or a group of farmers the right to enter and carry out works on the lands of an unwilling neighbour.
Does the Minister seriously think that in the case of a joint application under the Land Project were some hundreds of acres of land are under water, the carrying out of a comprehensive scheme should be held up simply because one person has an objection?
I confess to the Deputy that it is probably one of the most difficult and intractable problems in agriculture today and, quite frankly, I cannot see the solution to it. No doubt the ideal way to proceed is by voluntary co-operation of all the parties concerned. If this does not work what are you to do? We would have to introduce legislation and we would have to take compulsory powers to compel one of the persons concerned to acquiesce in the scheme. This would be very difficult and troublesome and would certainly lead to claims for compensation. Would you be entitled by law to levy a contribution on them? There are all these very difficult aspects of it. Quite frankly, as I say, just at the moment at any rate I cannot see a solution along the lines of compulsion. As I say, the only real alternative is to hope that local leadership at community level will succeed in overcoming these problems and getting these difficult individuals to fall into line with the requirements of the community.
Has the Minister no influential medium that we could use?
I should hope that this would be a very fruitful field for farmers' organisations and local rural organisations. This is where they could really do something useful as distinct from their other activities.
Mr. O'Malley
Holding up and objecting to rates.
I do not think the Minister for Health should interrupt. This is a terrible embarrassment to the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs who is a very decent man.