In my experience, on any complaints I have received on this score—and I have very long experience in this field—I have found that the people were not visited because they were outside the policy distance, or for some very obvious reason as, for instance, a man who had some other outside employment and, considering the amount of land available, obviously his personal circumstances would exclude him. Where anybody has requested a visit, or complained that he did not get a visit, invariably the Land Commission send an inspector to visit him. I can only say to the Deputy that in my experience in any complaints I got of this kind, I discovered they were not visited because they were outside the policy distance of the lands being divided. The Deputy will appreciate that when land is for division, needless to say, people are not slow to to go looking for it and whether they come within a mile, two miles or, sometimes three miles, they will try to get in on it, if they can —if I may put it that way. But the officials, naturally, must confine themselves, for the sake of avoiding useless work, to those who must be considered, those within the policy distance to which I have referred.
There was a practice in the Land Commission, and I have put an end to it, that where they acquired land but had not a sufficient acreage to make a reasonable scheme, they left it there in the hope that the lands of some other people in the area would come into the Land Commission machine in two or three years' time. They held on to this land in the hope of getting sufficient land to make a proper or a better division scheme at a future time. This gave rise to a number of complaints by Deputies and others, and of course those immediately concerned. A direction was issued by me through the Chief Inspector of the Land Commission on 18th January, 1965, in connection with the disposal of lands. It read:
"To each inspector,
The following policy directions should be noted and implemented.
All lands on the hands of the Land Commission should be schemed and allotted to the approved allottees as quickly as practicable. In future, lands should not be retained on hands longer than two years save where the Commissioners specifically direct otherwise.
The practice of holding land on hands pending the acquisition of other land in the neighbourhood, with a view to the formulation of a composite scheme, should be discontinued."
That is a standing instruction to the officials of the Land Commission throughout the country. It is an official policy instruction issued by me. Therefore, on this question of delay in the allotment of acquired land, it is only in the type of case to which I have referred that this can take place now unless the Commissioners specifically direct.
We have of course invariably allegations of political discrimination in the determination of lands to be acquired and the selection of allottees for these acquired lands. Such allegations are made here from time to time but they are not confirmed by facts or investigations. I should like again to make the position clear. As far back as 1933, the Government enshrined in the Land Act of that year a section which reserved to the Land Commissioners the final decision in certain clearly specified fields of Land Commission activity. The Act provided: "In the exercise of any of these reserved functions the decision rests with the Land Commissioners who are in a similar position to judges." I am satisfied that the Commissioners can be relied on to act fairly in the matter of acquiring land and the selection of allottees and in all other matters under their jurisdiction.
The choice of allottees is, of course, a difficult business. It is impossible to satisfy every applicant. The great difficulty is, of course, that every disappointed applicant will make all kinds of allegations about his neighbour who has been successful. There is not enough land to go around. This is the position in 99 per cent of cases of the division of land and I suppose that is possibly at the root of some of those wild allegations always unsubstantiated, which we hear in this field from time to time. In many cases with the limited amount and the layout of land, the Land Commission cannot make a perfect scheme. This is regretted. Some applicants have to be unavoidably disappointed but in most cases there is the possibility of reconsideration for those when further land comes to be divided or comes into the Land Commission machine. If it is felt that a scheme requires investigation, this of course can always be done.
When replying to the debate on the Estimate a year ago, I said that I deplored the practice of Deputies of making allegations about Land Commission inspectors unless there was some reason or unless some notice of the matter was given. It is unfair to attack people who cannot defend themselves here. In any event, I am confident that most of these attacks on individual inspectors are ill-founded, or certainly exaggerated. What I want to emphasise is that from the ground floor up in connection with land acquisition and division, it is not alone the junior inspector who goes out to take the necessary particulars who is involved. His work is checked by a senior inspector in charge in that area. It is passed to the divisional inspector and ultimately must go to the Commissioners themselves. This is the way the job is done; this is the way the law provides that the job be done.
In this connection, for instance, there was an allegation made in this debate by a Deputy regarding a man named McCormack from the west of Ireland who was supposed to be allowed to sell land or purchase land because he came evidently from my county. On investigation, I find that this man came up on a major exchange of lands over 30 years ago to that particular county. On further inquiry—although I do not know the man personally, nor did I receive any representations one way or the other about that particular case—I find that he is not of my faith either religious or political and was in fact a very definite opponent of my Party many years ago. These wild and irresponsible allegations of political discrimination cause an awful lot of suspicion and an awful lot of harm to the ordinary people concerned in this field because when it is said, as is being alleged, that there is some form of political influence being used at some stage or other in the proceedings with the Land Commission officials, a number of innocent country people are bound to believe it.
Let me say this: any politician, no matter which side of this House he is on, who tries to sell the idea that he is responsible for giving people additions of land is a common idiot, in my view. If he has anything upstairs at all, he should keep well away from any question of the division of land because for every single case—and I come from the heart of the most congested area in this country—or for the two or three people who will succeed, there will be 40 unsuccessful applicants in that immediate area. If I may, with my grey hairs of experience in this House, give any advice to any young Deputies, may I suggest that they try to get the Land Commission to take over lands that should be suitable for the relief of congestion but once that is done, if they want to survive politically, let them keep well away from the suggestion that they have anything to do with the allocation of that land, once it comes into the hands of the Land Commission.
The next point I wish to deal with, and there is some substance in this on one side, is the allegation by Deputy O.J. Flanagan and others about delays in paying for acquired land. Let me make it quite clear that there are no delays in the lands that are being purchased in a straightforward way by cash at the moment. There have been delays, and still are delays, in connection with the compulsory acquisition of lands where the land is being paid for in land bonds. I gave figures to the House some time ago regarding the delay in this latter type of case. I am certainly not happy with it myself, I candidly admit. It used to be 27 months before the final proceedings were completed in these compulsory acquisition cases. It is down to something like an average of nine months. I am just saying that this is an improvement but I am not happy with it.
All the delay in this matter cannot in any way be attributed to the Examiner's Office of the Land Commission. A big percentage of the delay in many cases is due to the legal gentlemen handling it for the owners. That happens from time to time. I certainly get many letters from people complaining about not having received their land bonds or purchase money and, on investigation, I find that the Examiner's Office are waiting on some legal formalities of title to be completed by the solicitors having the carriage of sale. At the same time, I want to say that I have done an amount of work in simplifying and streamlining the procedure so that now in the ordinary straightforward case of a voluntary purchase between the Land Commission and a vendor down the country, a sale can be and is closed in the course of a month like any ordinary sale, unless there is some unusual difficulty.
In the other cases there are certainly legal reasons why the Examiner's Office have to be so meticulous. I am endeavouring to find a way to further shorten this delay period in so far as it is created by the Examiner's Office. I am not saying, however, or accepting that all this delay is on one side only. There may be cases, and there are, in which it is not the solicitors' fault. For example, in some cases questions about death duties arise and a certificate of discharge from death duties has to be got. Also there can be long delay in dealing with the Estate Duty Office. I do not know whether we will be able to achieve any streamlining procedure. We can only try. In the majority of cases, and even in the compulsory cases in which there are delays, I am satisfied that much of the delay is due to the legal people concerned taking things easy and not getting on with their work as quickly as they should.
Some Deputies referred to landless men being excluded from the categories of persons to whom land may be allotted. Where the disposal of lands which are not required for the structural reform of uneconomic holdings or other priority commitments is concerned, the claims of such applicants in any locality are always carefully considered by the Land Commission. Preference is then given to those who have experience of the working of land and who have sufficient capital or stock to enable them to work any land that might be allotted to them.
In practice, however, the needs of the structural reform programme are such that the landless man must of necessity take a very low place in the allotment queue, and with a very serious land settlement problem still confronting us, it would be unrealistic to hold out much hope that the landless man can be moved up along the queue. Having regard to the extent of genuine congestion still awaiting solution—that is, amongst the people exclusively or mainly dependent on agriculture for a livelihood—the main emphasis on land policy must be directed towards uneconomic holders and migrants from congested areas.
I am being requested here, as I was during the debate on the Land Act, 1965, to declare additional congested areas. I have already pointed out on a number of occasions in reply to questions, and in the course of the debate on the Land Act, 1965, that I consider priority should be afforded to the traditional congested areas where congestion has for so long been so pronounced that it would, as yet, be premature to declare additional areas under section 4 of the Land Act, 1965. I need scarcely point out that for historical reasons the scheduled congested areas constitute the main area in which agrarian structure requires radical reform. That is why the various Land Acts and land settlement policy were and still are directed mainly towards ameliorating the lot of the smallholders in these regions. It is here that there is the greatest need for rationalisation of farm structure, and consequently the powers provided by the Land Act, 1965, particularly the new life annuities and self-migration loans schemes, will have to be concentrated on these regions so that as much land as possible can be made available to assist materially in the implementation of the structural reform programme.
I readily concede that there are other parts of the country which, by modern standards, must also be regarded as substantially congested. Pockets of congestion will be found in other places in the country, but it is utterly unrealistic for Deputy Fitzpatrick and others to come crying to me about discrimination, and about all the people not being equal under the Land Act, 1965. The people outside the congested areas had better land, better availability of markets and higher valuations on average from time immemorial than the people in the congested areas. Literally there is no comparison whatever between the land slum problem in the congested areas and the rest of the country. It is utter nonsense to talk about alleged discrimination because special measures are being taken to deal with the land slum problem which was left to us as a result of our history.
Until I became Minister for Lands, there were two different standards by which people could get land. West of the Shannon once you had a valuation of £10, you were written off by the Land Commission and not entitled to any additional land. There were holdings vested down there with valuations of £3 10s, £4, and £4 10s still leaving a bad land slum problem, whereas if you lived east of the Shannon if you had not more than 33 acres of good land, which could run to a valuation of £35, you were entitled to be considered by the Land Commission. So, down through the years, and through all the Land Acts, there was discrimination in one direction only, and that was discrimination against the unfortunates in the most congested land slums in the whole country.
If in this day and age a special effort is being made to consider those people now, I do not see what people in the rest of the country have to complain about. They had a better opportunity and better land, and they had it for a longer time. They should not now start crying because their poorer neighbour west of the Shannon is getting some preferential treatment. As far as Cavan is concerned, there is a pilot area in the country and Deputy Fitzpatrick has, no doubt, read the budgetary provisions for the pilot areas and the scheme for intensification of the land structural reform areas. This will apply to all the pilot areas.
Very few Deputies devote much time—it does not suit their programme to do so—to discussing the fact that for the first time £200,000 is being made available to do a complete clean-up job of structural reform in these pilot areas, which are now being extended. This is the beginning of an all-out attack on the land slum problem in a way in which it will be seen to be done. The Land Commission will henceforth be able to finish an area for all time and say: "These people are on viable holdings with modern buildings. If they do not succeed, it is not the fault of the State or of the Land Commission, but of the land owners, because for the first time they are being provided with the where-withal, by way of acres, to provide themselves and their families with a good living".
This is the first time that there has been a real attempt to attack the land slum problem. Dr. Scully, in his report on the pilot areas, found that it was impossible for the Land Commission to achieve the results they intended to achieve under the pilot areas scheme unless major surgery was carried out. In five of his points, he referred to deficiencies because of lack of Land Commission work in the areas. Now, even as I speak, Land Commission inspectors are going through these pilot areas, doing a comb-cut, getting details of circumstances, noting the people who might be likely to accept a pension scheme, who might be suitable for self-migration, so that they can say within six weeks: "In this area the situation is that we are making an overall plan for it in conjunction with the pilot areas committee".
This is the first time this has been attempted. It is a logical way to do the job, replacing some of the haphazard work done by the Land Commission—dealing with one small farm here with not enough land to go round; dealing with another small farm there with not enough land to go round; still having to come back to that area, not having finished the job. In this intensive job now being done in these areas, we shall be settling people on viable holdings and unless it is their own fault, there is no reason why the landowners should not survive on the land of Ireland.
The pattern in our country will go that way and while the pilot areas are being extended, as has been announced, I do not conceive this as merely drawing a line on a map. In a congested area where the Land Commission have done a good structural reform job and have the new houses ready, the new stables ready and the drainage and fences done, they can say to the pilot areas committee: "Here is the Land Commission's structural reform job. We are ready for you to go in, horse, foot and artillery, with all the inducements for the people concerned to get the very best in productivity from that land." I do not see why, when we get the statistics in this comb-out, we cannot work the pilot areas scheme by extending it in conjunction with the increased Land Commission activity to any particular area.
We have had complaints about higher annuities. Higher annuities are inevitable at the moment in the non-congested areas. What Deputies seem to forget is that in paying these higher annuities, people are not in the position of having to pay rent for land. It is a matter of the tenant being enabled by the Land Commission, under a hire purchase agreement, to purchase the land. That is what Deputies keep away from. I have had deputations not alone from the West but indeed from the middle of Carlow, who told me they were paying £25 and up to £35 an acre for conacre. I had a question three weeks ago about a man who did not get land. I discovered that though he did not have land, he had a tractor, about 25 milch cows, about 14 dry cattle. He is a man without land. I gathered, if my memory serves me right, that this individual was paying out £1,100 a year for land and that he had more stock and equipment than the majority of the small farmers in the part of the country from which I come.
I should like those people crying out about high annuities to explain how men without any land can live and build houses and rear families and pay from £15 to £25 an acre for conacre, which they are taking every day in the week from auctioneers throughout the country. There is something queer about the starving gentleman who cannot survive on 300 acres in the midlands when we have these people going about.
The position is that it has been provided by law that where land is bought and being divided in non-congested areas, the full purchase price must be paid. There may be the odd case where some farmers have refused allotments. Deputy Kennedy mentioned one here today. Of course there are farmers and farmers. There are some farmers who would be better off following some other occupation. There are some alleged farmers who will not take additions of land because it might interfere with the dole. I do not regard these as people who should be running the land of Ireland.
The Land Commission, as bankers, enable these people to buy out their land during a long number of years. These people are getting the land from the Land Commission; they do not have to pay out money in perpetuity for conacre but acquire additions to their farms, and I think the progressive man in any community will be very glad to get that addition from the Land Commission and to pay the purchase price spread over a long period of years in the way to which I have referred.
Deputy Kennedy also raised the point about Sliabh Coillte which I shall refer to more appropriately when I come to deal with forestry. Deputy Treacy had something to say about the Charteris estate and about the valuation of the lands divided on that estate. The question of the valuation of land is one for the Valuation Office, the Land Commission supplying them with particulars after a scheme has been operated. Some anomalies may arise in sorting out these people's valuations vis-á-vis adjacent holdings: there may be unfavourable valuation comparisons.
I wish to put it on record, however, for Deputy Treacy's benefit that we have nothing to do with that operation: it is a question for the Valuation Office in consultation with the county council. As the Deputy is aware, there is an appeal, if they are not satisfied with their valuation. The only advice I can give him—I do not know how it operates with the county councils as far as housing is concerned—is that if there are anomalies, the place to straighten it out is the Valuation Office.
The size of units in the intake of land going into the Land Commission machine is going down substantially from year to year. The average size of holding coming in five years ago was 126 acres. That is down for the last year to an average of 60 acres. The reason is that in many cases the old, big estates have already been acquired and the type of land coming in to us now is in smaller units. The same appears to be true in regard to forestry offers. Since the units are smaller, more work is involved, more inspections, more valuations and more time taken up with the investigation of the acquisition and allotments. I assume this figure will come down as time goes on. From my own recollection, there are very few large estates west of the Shannon that have not been acquired and divided compared with 15 or 20 years ago.
Many Deputies—with the exception of Deputy M.P. Murphy, who seems to have a peculiar view of his own about the Land Commission—are complaining that there is not sufficient staff in the different areas to carry out the Land Commission work. I candidly admit that. We are looking for more staff. With the increase in Land Commission activity, particularly that engendered by the Land Act, 1965, we will have to get more staff if we are to do the job the country expects us to do. Again, with the new activity in the pilot areas, we need more staff. As far as I am able to achieve it, the level of Land Commission activity in the pilot areas and the congested areas generally will continue to increase in relation to the amount of national resources that may be there to promote it. It is very high on the priority list of the Government as is evidenced by the increased provision made this year for this work. It is not the kind of work that can start and stop. It must be a continuous effort. The machine must be geared to it by having adequate staff. We are endeavouring to get the necessary staff as quickly as possible. However, the latest information I have shows that our efforts are not meeting with great success. While we have got a number, we have not got nearly as many as we require. However, we will be making further efforts shortly to make up the deficiency.
A number of Deputies expressed their interest in and concern for the game resources of our country. I am entirely with them in that and can assure them I am sparing no pains to ensure the success of our game development movement and the preservation and conservation of our wild life. This is something new in my Department and we have had to build up some expertise in this field. I am glad to say we have now some experts trained. We have a scientific officer, Dr. Fergus O'Gorman, helping us, and this help and technical knowledge will be available to the regional game councils throughout the country. I hope we are getting on to a new start on this work.
Last week we had in Dublin the annual general assembly of the International Game Council, a body of world standing in the game, hunting and conservation fields. I had the privilege of being host to this organisation of sportsmen and scientists. It was a most valuable experience to meet these people and have the benefit of their readily-given views and suggestions on game and wild life conservation matters. It was manifest that these people, with the wealth of experience at their disposal, appreciated the possibilities of game and wild life development here in Ireland and that they were willing and anxious to help in every possible way.
As Deputies are aware, I am considering many proposals and suggestions which have been made by our game councils, and game and wild life associations throughout the country for new legislation on game and wild life protection. I have been thinking on the lines of one comprehensive measure in which game would be dealt with, not as an isolated entity, but in its natural context of the living, natural environment of land and water in which predators and potential prey be managed and controlled in the interest of the wise stewardship of our natural resources. I am happy that the International Council, in particular the legal committee, has fully endorsed these lines of thought and I look forward to the day in the very near future when I will be introducing legislation to this House on these lines. We need comprehensive law in this field. I am anxious, and I am sure the House would be, that we would learn from the mistakes made elsewhere in this field. Therefore, it was very interesting for us to have the legal committee of the Conseil Internationale de la Chasse prepared to give us every help from the wealth of experience they have throughout Europe and indeed the United States. They are giving their attention to the legislation we are drafting. I am glad to say that a lot of it has already been prepared, suitable, I hope, to our conditions here. I am satisfied there is a great national potential for development here. I know we have built up, for the first time, through the regional game councils and others, a great fund of goodwill in this field. I hope much further progress will be made during the coming year.
As far as the Forestry Estimate is concerned, we have the general run of complaints about the lay-off in employment last year. I told the House, when introducing the Estimate last year, what we expected the position to be. Let me assure Deputy Esmonde that there was no particular discrimination in the loss of forestry employment in Wexford, in the south, in the east or in any particular place. The overall loss of employment, due to the reduction of the Estimate, has been calculated by my advisers at 2½ per cent, and that was spread all over the country. I can remember a forest in my own county, in Foxford, in which there was a very substantial lay-off.
Forestry employment, as Deputies know, largely depends on conditions at the local forests, the stage of development, the land available for planting, and so on. There is no rule of thumb whereby ten go out of this forest or five out of that. It depends upon the work programme that there is, the work that is available there and employment in some cases suffers in certain forests much more than in others. The Forestry Division regret very much having to leave off workers but there is no alternative in certain circumstances.
As Deputies will see, however, the target this year is again 25,000 acres. We do not know whether it can be reached but that is the target and that is the amount that is budgeted for. If we are able to get the necessary land, if we are able to implement our programme, we expect that we will reach the target figure. I am sure that as far as Deputies are concerned the main thing is the fact that the money is there provided for the job, if we are able to do it.
Deputy Flanagan raised the question of marketing of forestry produce and industrial development based on that. It is generally agreed that the existing capacity of the sawmilling industry is sufficient to cope with all our output of saw-log material and there will be no significant increase in the availability of such material over the next few years. In regard to the smaller dimension material, which arises mainly from thinnings, the four existing processing factories are taking almost all our output and plans for the expansion of the industry's capacity are in hand. Minor difficulty can always arise in getting a market for produce in an area remote from any of the processing factories but, overall, it should be possible to get the supply and demand for forest produce into reasonable equilibrium over the next few years.
I know that there was some public misunderstanding about this matter and allegations have been made by new people who wanted to come into this business that there was more material available. People are inclined to forget that those in the business and the existing industry have expanded their capacity very substantially since they originally started and that they have been continuously demanding more material and, so far as we can see, for the immediate future at any rate, the existing industry is in a position to absorb what the Forestry Division can give them, whatever may come from private forestry.
I think it was Deputy Tully who raised the point that forestry workers who break their service by a continuing absence of over 30 days may lose their holidays for the year in which the break occurs. That is not, in fact, correct because under the Holidays (Employees) Act, 1961, forestry workers who complete the necessary 1,600 hours and do not break their service are entitled to 14 consecutive days holidays and a man who, because he breaks his service by an absence of over 30 days fails to qualify for annual leave, is, nevertheless, allowed one-sixth of a day's pay in respect of each month in which he has worked the necessary 135 hours. There is no question of a man who is otherwise qualified being deprived of leave because of a break in service. If he does not get his annual leave, he will qualify for this payment in lieu of his annual leave. The Deputy's reference to loss of leave might perhaps, arise from some misunderstanding but this is the position as I and my Department understand it.
The question of sick pay for forestry workers was raised. An outline of a proposed new scheme has been issued by my Department to all the trade unions concerned.
The question of income tax deductions was raised and it was stated that hardship was being incurred by forestry workers suffering from heavy deductions in the weeks preceding Christmas. A scale of income tax deductions is, in fact, in operation in the Forestry Division whereby workmen can have a certain amount deducted from their incomes each week, starting at the beginning of the financial year, towards payment of their income tax assessment. This scheme is not obligatory and workmen who do not wish to have regular deductions made from the beginning of the financial year can opt out of the scheme and await the arrival of their assessments in the normal course. I understand that income tax assessments in respect of forestry workers were out by the end of July last year so that even in the case of those who opted out of the earlier deduction, a fairly substantial part of the year remained over which to spread the payment.
There is always, of course, the possibility of an exceptional case. A man who has opted out of the scheme or who has come to our employment late in the year and had earnings elsewhere could be the subject of a late assessment. I believe, however, that such cases are rare and would be unusual under the present arrangement and, from the point of view of staggering income tax payments, I think that the scheme that exists is adequate. Of course, I suppose the fact is that many workers, like many of us, do not want to pay too early or do not want to start paying income tax until they have to pay.