Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 23 May 1967

Vol. 228 No. 11

Committee on Finance. - Vote 34—Lands (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following motion:
That a sum not exceeding £3,524,000 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1968, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Offices of the Minister for Lands and of the Irish Land Commission.
—(Minister for Lands).

There are one or two matters to which I want to refer in relation to the administration of lands. The 1965 Act revolutionised the distribution of land in this country. I had always thought that the policy of the Department was to place as many people on the land as possible and to increase the holdings of small farmers but to leave them in the position that they were able to make a proper living. Under the 1945 Act, the charges imposed on the farmers on the side of the country from which I come, the east, and to a large extent in areas in Munster and other places outside the congested areas, have been considerably increased. I thought also that up to the enactment of the 1965 Act as a result of legislation introduced around the time of the Economic War when Fianna Fáil first came into power, the annuities were halved, but under the 1965 Act, as far as I can read it, the annuities are no longer halved anywhere except in the congested areas.

The Land Commission finds itself in the position of having to go on a free market to buy land. The minimum prices of land today are in the neighbourhood of £100 or £150 an acre. The rate of interest charged by the Department is 7¾ per cent. That means that on a farm of land bought on the open market by the Land Commission at £100 an acre, the charge is approximately £7 15s per statute acre. On land bought at £150 an acre, the charge is £10 per statute acre. Therefore, if I am a small farmer receiving an allotment of land from the Land Commission and I do not live in the congested areas which cover about six or seven counties, I have to pay a minimum flat rate of £7 15s. per statute acre. That is not the end of it. If there is fencing to be done and if there are roads to be laid down, I have to pay for this work as well. Living as I do outside the congested areas, I also have to face a charge which is double the annuity charge those more fortunate people have to pay in the congested areas. I fully realise that the circumstances prevailing in those counties are quite different from those prevailing in my own county but, in my considered opinion, there is no small farmer, that is, provided he is entirely dependent for his living on farming, in a position to pay a charge of £7 to £10 an acre for a farm allocated to him by the Land Commission. That may not sound like an awful lot of money but it boils down to this, that if the allotment of land is 30 acres, then seven times 30 is £210 a year, which makes it quite impossible for the allottee to pay his way.

I am sure that when the Minister rises to reply, he will say—one cannot blame him for putting the best face on the unfortunate situation which has been brought about by the 1965 Act— that there is a very small percentage of refusals of allotments. That is perfectly true. The refusals today, I understand, are in the neighbourhood of ten per cent. Is there anybody in this country struggling to exist on a small farm of 30 acres who gets an opportunity of an allocation of another 25 acres and who will not take it? The majority of people will chance it, hoping they will be able to weather it.

What I want to suggest to the Minister and to the House is that an impossible burden is being placed on the small farmers of Ireland, and it should not be very hard to get around this. It will not cost the State all that amount of money to equate the charges with those in the congested areas. We are very fairminded in Leinster, and I am sure the same in Munster, and we appreciate the fact that perhaps we have a slightly better way of living than those in the west of Ireland and in the congested areas, but surely the ratio between the two is out of all proportion? The Constitution says that everybody in this country should get an equal chance. I submit to the Minister that under his policy everyone is not getting an equal chance. It is desirable socially and economically that we should expand our farming production and keep as many people on the land as possible.

I suggest to the Minister that if he wants to rectify the situation, the only way he can rectify it without legislation—I am not permitted on the Estimate to advocate legislation and I do not think it is necessary in this case— is to look to the Minister for Finance for a subsidy to reduce the rents; otherwise, the Department of Lands will be faced with chaos in the not too distant future. They are going to allocate land and, as I say, the allottees will naturally take the land in the hope that they will be able to carry on. They will find they will not be able to do so and chaos will set in. Farms will be returned to the Minister for Lands, or to the Commissioners, as the case may be. The land will have to be re-allocated which will mean extra work and extra finance, and it will show that the present policy in respect of the allocation of land is a total failure.

I am making this speech not in any spirit of acrimony but because I am conversant with what is happening and with the difficulties farmers in my constituency will have to face—and not alone in my constituency but throughout the country—if they have to pay these very high charges, because, on top of whatever annuity they must pay, they also have to pay rates, and rates are not going down and are not likely to go down in the foreseeable future. I appeal to the Minister to consider that aspect.

The second matter I want to deal with is the question of the North Slob. This is constituted of 1,400 or 1,500 acres of arable land. A special embankment was erected there 100 years ago. Portion of this land was owned at one time by a Wexford family who farmed it, produced root crops and reared livestock on it. It is some of the best arable land in Europe. It is owned at present by a non-national. He has 200 head of cattle on it and he employs 12 men. Not many farmers are in a position today to employ 12 men. I understand he wanted to carry out some deep soil drainage. He applied to the Department of Agriculture for a drainage grant and he was refused on the ground that, if he carried out drainage, he would ruin the marshes.

Last January the Minister for Lands made a speech and, according to the Irish Independent of 18th January, he referred to the white-fronted geese from Greenland migrating to the Wexford marshes and said: “The drainage of these marshes, which would be detrimental to the geese, had presented the Department with a big problem. The Department hoped to acquire 500 acres of these marshes as a preserve for these geese.” I submit there are no marshes. A drainage scheme was carried out in this area a century ago and, as a result of that, the area was freed of marshes and is today arable land fit to grow anything.

I do not know if it is the intention of the Land Commission to acquire this land in order to encourage white-fronted geese to migrate here every year and provide tourists with shooting facilities. Because of my local knowledge, I know that the geese have been coming to this area over the years; they have been coming into the sloblands, not into a marsh. This slob is, in fact, arable land. It would be a great pity if facilities are refused for the drainage of these lands in order to preserve them as so-called marshes to encourage the geese to come into this country. I should like the Minister to give an assurance that the Department do not intend to acquire 500 acres of the North Slob or, if they intend to acquire it, as they are entitled to do, that they will treat those 500 acres as arable land.

The next matter I wish to raise relates to forestry employment and pensions for forestry employees. I understand a gratuity is payable to a worker who has been employed for a certain number of years. I think the period is 20. Lately I have been getting correspondence from constituents who have retired from forestry for a number of years and who knew nothing whatever about this system of gratuity. Some of these people have been retired for three or four years. I suppose if they were retired for six years, they would be statute barred. If there is a system of gratuity on retirement, these forestry employees should be informed of it when they are retiring. It should be a simple matter to do this through the local forestry office.

With regard to employment, I am not satisfied with the reply the Minister gave recently as to the reduction because of redundancy. Some of the redundancy is due to less land being acquired, but I understand that problem has now been solved. The target of 25,000 acres per annum, set by the inter-Party Government originally, is again being reached. It had dropped to 20,000 acres for a year or so. I understand that redundancy now is due to more modern techniques: fewer people can do the work with better results. That is what I am told. In reply to a Parliamentary Question, the Minister stated that he believed the reduction in employment would be only 2½ per cent. I think he was referring to the entire country. Everything seems to work out to our disadvantage in Wexford and I should like to know now if we are paying for redundancy in the rest of the country, if redundancy over the entire country is 2½ per cent. I submit that there is a much higher reduction in employment in one forest in my constituency and I believe the position is the same in other Wexford forests.

I have written to the Department of Lands giving my views on this matter. I have not yet received a reply. No doubt they are cogitating on the points I put before them. In Wexford the reduction is, in my estimation, 12 per cent. If the overall reduction is 2½ per cent and the reduction in Wexford is 12 per cent, Wexford is not only paying, along with the other counties, a higher rate of charges but is also paying dearly in employment. I trust the Minister will answer the points I have made when he comes to reply.

There are just a few points I should like to make. The first is in relation to the Kennedy Memorial Park. I am glad to see an increased allocation for the development of that worthy project. I should like, however, to remind the Minister that originally the lands here were sold to the Land Commission, not specifically, I am sure, but with the general idea that the land on that very fine farm of between 300 and 400 acres would be available for division among the many smallholders in that area. After the assassination of President Kennedy and when the Government were endeavouring to commemorate him in that area, the Minister was aware of that holding in the hands of the Land Commission and proceeded to have it transferred to the Forestry Division of his Department for development. In his speech, the Minister complimented the societies in America that helped to commemorate their President in this venture. I should like to place on record our appreciation of the many smallholders in that area who would have benefited by the division of that land because when the land was transferred to the Forestry Division, not a dissenting voice was heard in that semi-congested area.

Later on in the development, when the Forestry Division came to acquire the commonage on Sliabh Coillte, they were not very generous in trying to purchase the rights of the landowners there. Including the Land Commission, there were 21 tenants who had rights to an area of over 200 acres. In their first effort to acquire that land, the Forestry Division offered a ridiculously low sum to the tenants for their rights there. It was so low that it created a certain amount of resentment. People came together and said they would not accept the offer and asked for a higher price. In the course of further negotiations, particularly by the local curate and other people, it was asked what might be considered a reasonable sum. They were not prepared to take —and I think they were right—the ordinary price offered by the Forestry Division for land suitable for planting.

I would ask the Minister to consider that the tenants were entitled to look on this land as to a certain extent development land. In any area where development takes place, landowners get prices for their property far and away above those for what might be regarded as land for agricultural purposes. The tenants are entitled to some extent to view this undertaking as development. The price they asked was fairly reasonable. I do not know the exact position. My information is that the Forestry Division have now decided not to develop the commonage. If this is because of the difference of opinion on price, then I think it is a pity. The difference between what is offered and what is asked is about £3,500 to £4,000. It may seem big money but it is relatively small in the light of the total amount of money to be spent on the undertaking. I appeal to the Minister to have his officials deal sympathetically with the people here. They are mainly the people who would have benefited by the division of the land and, as I have said, when that land to which they had been looking forward for many years passed out of their grasp almost there was not a dissenting voice to be heard.

I would remind the Minister that when the Forestry Division took over this land, there was an application to the Land Commission by the local GAA club for a site for a playing field. I am sure there will not be difficulty about that application because, with the development of a college there, a playing field will be a necessity. I trust that the local GAA club will be granted their request.

There is another small problem in connection with this take-over. A relatively small landholder, living on the fringe of this, enjoyed a right there over a period of 90 years of approximately 5 or 5½ acres adjoining his own land. For practically 75 of the 90 years, it was rent free. Then the late owner, in order to regularise it, I suppose, charged a rent of £6 a year. When it passed to the Land Commission, the Land Commission told this tenant verbally that this right of his would not be interfered with. But, again, when the Forestry Division took it over, they took over this part, too, and proceeded to fence off the land that was held by the family in question for 90 years. It is on the fringe of this holding. It is adjoining the road. It is bounding the dwelling and the property of the tenant in question. I think the Forestry people could well meet the request of that tenant.

All the people in the area of Sliabh Coillte are delighted that the development has taken place and the Forestry Division can be assured of help and co-operation in everything they do. As far as the Land Commission are concerned, I just want to make a few remarks about the acquisition and allocation of land in County Wexford. It has been represented to me that a farmer in my constituency with a holding of 16 acres was recently allocated 28 acres by the Land Commission. That 28 acres would cost him £224 a year. This man has refused the allotment because not by any stretch of the imagination could a farmer of 44 acres pay an annuity of £224. It should be possible to devise some means to remedy this situation: I am sure it can be done with the aid of the Minister for Finance.

I do not agree that the structural alteration of land is a cure for our farming ills. All that the small farmers in County Wexford want is more land at a price that they can afford, a price that will enable them, when they have got possession of the land, to improve their standard of living and encourage their children to remain on the land. There is not much land for division in Wexford except in small lots and when it comes on the market, the price is high. Perhaps living in the east we are not entitled to any concessions but there is no use giving land to a farmer engaged in mixed farming if the annuity is to be over £6 an acre. Even where it is £6, the acreage of land must be less than he has. You can give a man 10 acres if he has 30 and charge him £6 an acre for it, but if he has only 10 acres and you give him 30 acres at £6 an acre he cannot make a living from it. In conclusion, I hope something will be done about the case I have quoted and that the matter will be reconsidered. Perhaps if a smaller acreage was offered to the man, less than 20 to his 16, he might be encouraged to have a "go", but he could not undertake to pay that annuity on 44 acres.

(Cavan): I am disappointed with the progress made under the Land Act, 1965. When it was introduced we were led to believe by the Minister that if it would not solve all the problems of congestion it would solve a great many of them very quickly. As a result, many people in congested areas on small, uneconomic holdings were led to believe that they would be dealt with without delay. Whether due to insufficient staff or insufficient money or some other cause there does not appear to have been any worthwhile improvement in the provision of land for uneconomic holders since that Act became law. I want to deal with the Land Act, 1965, as it relates to my constituency. The Minister for Finance, when introducing his Budget, promised a number of worthwhile incentives to small farmers in the 12 western counties. As far as I can ascertain. Cavan is regarded as one of the 12 western counties because it is in the undeveloped areas. In the course of his speech the Minister for Finance mentioned that the farmers in these areas would be helped by the self-migration and other provisions of the 1965 Land Act.

When the Land Act was going through the Seanad, I tried to get the Minister to include Cavan in the congested areas but the Minister resisted an amendment I put down and the result is that the self-migration provisions of the Act do not apply to Cavan, notwithstanding what the Minister for Finance said. Accordingly, the farmer in Roscommon who wishes to purchase a farm in Meath or elsewhere can get assistance by way of loan from the Land Commission under the Land Act, 1965, but a Cavan farmer does not qualify for such a loan. That is unfair. Further, a farmer in Roscommon who gets an allotment of land in Roscommon has only to pay half the annuity, half the rent, while a farmer in Cavan who gets an allotment in Cavan from the Land Commission has to pay the full rent. For example, a farmer in Roscommon has to pay £50 but the Cavan farmer has to pay £100. This is not equitable and it is not fair. Cavan is now regarded as being in the undeveloped areas and is so treated under some schemes and under some of the provisions of the Social Welfare Acts.

If the promises contained in the Budget are to be of any value to Cavan, the Minister for Lands should take steps—I think he can do so by order under the existing Act and without any amending legislation—to ensure that the Cavan farmers get the same treatment in relation to loans for the purchase of lands and rents as their neighbours in Leitrim, Sligo, Roscommon and other counties. I cannot see why a Roscommon farmer should get more generous treatment under the Land Acts than a Cavan farmer. There are parts of Cavan, particularly of West Cavan, which are much more congested than parts of Roscommon and parts of other western counties. I wish to renew the appeal I made in the Seanad when the Land Bill was being discussed, for the same treatment for my constituents as the constituents in Roscommon, South Leitrim and the people of the so-called congested areas.

I wish to raise a few points of interest which have occurred to me as a public representative and by reason of the representations made to me from time to time. I want to add my voice to the voices of others who over a long period have been pleading in this House for a better deal for forestry workers. It is extremely disconcerting that despite the pressure of various trade unions and the very many pertinent questions asked here conditions of employment of forestry workers are still very much below what is normal for those in comparable employment. This is particularly so in respect of the way in which the hours are worked and the fact that these workers have, as yet, no pension scheme.

We have continuous complaints from them that they are not being properly provided for in respect of huts against inclement weather, protective clothing and, from time to time, that they are not provided with tools and equipment to carry on the job. There are instances in which the supply of boots or wellingtons at a given time is such that the men are expected to use boots of fellow workers. This is not good enough. I invite the Minister to make a categorical statement on this occasion regarding improvement in the lot of forestry workers particularly in regard to a pension scheme. Forestry workers realise that so many employees in comparable employment enjoy these fringe benefits, as they are now called, and such benefits are becoming of more and more importance in the minds of union leaders and members. Benefits such as the shorter working week, the provision of sick pay and pension schemes, security in sickness and old age are becoming of primary importance, even more important than wage increases as such.

The Minister will appreciate the importance of this matter and I invite him to make a statement indicating once and for all that he will bring in a pension scheme for forestry workers. Employees of local authorities, county council road workers and so on have enjoyed a superannuation scheme for a considerable time. They contribute weekly and receive a pension on retirement. This was a tremendous benefit to them under the Superannuation Acts of 1955 and 1956. Even at this late stage I invite the Minister to concede to workers under his authority something similar to what workers in comparable employment enjoy.

I am also aware that there seems to be undue delay in the payment of gratuities or Treasury warrants, as they are called, to forestry workers. I have been making repeated representations that these gratuities should be paid to retired forestry workers and in many cases the men are of such advanced age and so extremely ill that I fear many of them will have passed to their reward before the Department concede this gratuity based on the length of service they have given.

Deputy Esmonde made an excellent point when he said the Department should inform all forestry workers who are about to retire of their rights in this respect. Unless a retiring forestry worker becomes aware of this concession in some haphazard way, such as being informed by a colleague or by inquiring from a public representative, they are, in the main, largely unaware of this gratuity concession. It is only fair that the Department should advise their employees of this right, indicating how they may secure it when they reach retiring age. I hope the Minister will say that will be done. It is a reasonable request and would help in expediting payment of these gratuities.

The credit squeeze which we experienced in the past few years affected the Department and afforestation. This is seen in the delay in the purchase of land, in the redundancy which took place in many forest areas and it was particularly deplorable in respect of the laying off of forestry workers. I do not have to emphasise the importance of the work of afforestation, the acquisition of these barren tracts of mountain land and their development for seeding in due course and the wealth which accrues to the nation in the long term. These are aspects which everybody can appreciate. It is work of a highly productive nature and it is deplorable that the Minister should see fit to cut back on this work in the interests of alleged economy. I hope the Minister will be able to give us some hope of acceleration in the acquisition of additional land for afforestation and of a very great increase in the numbers employed.

The Minister and the Department are fully aware of how important forestry work is to people in rural areas. Employment on farms is becoming rarer; labour is being displaced by mechanisation and more and more potential agricultural workers are looking to afforestation for employment. I appeal to the Minister to accelerate the excellent work in the nurseries and forestry work generally, with a view to providing more employment for workers in rural areas. Like most Deputies, I have been obliged to put forward the views of those small farmers of my constituency, the congests in particular, and prevail on the Minister and his Department to do what they can to provide additional land for those farmers who were forced to try to exist on what were clearly known to be uneconomic holdings. My concern is that despite the many representations one makes, it is only in exceptional cases, it would seem, that the applicants concerned are visited by the Land Commission inspectors in the area.

One expects, when one states the needs of the smallholders, that at least those particular applicants should be properly visited by an officer from the Land Commission. I cannot conceive how land can be distributed on a fair, just and equitable basis if each applicant is not fully and properly investigated by such an officer. I submit that it is simply not good enough that a Land Commission officer should accept the views of the man's neighbour or assess the applicant on some secondhand or third-rate information, or that he should even assess the worth of an applicant on the summing up or advice of an agricultural officer or even some public person in the locality. The applicant is worthy of a visit and a proper assessment of his worth in respect of getting an economic holding.

I would ask the Minister to ensure that every application for additional land is investigated by a personal visit to the applicant in a fair and impartial manner. Secondhand information is simply not good enough. It is no wonder that when estates are divided from time to time we have expressions of anxiety in the area that political influence has been very largely responsible for the success attending certain applicants for land. I should hope that the Land Commission is a neutral and impartial body, removed from political pressures. Unfortunately, to us laymen, and as public representatives, there seems to be evidence from time to time which would indicate that the Land Commission, as such, is being subjected to political pressures and that quite a lot depends on what Party one belongs to.

I remember coming across what purported to be an application for land from the Land Commission. It was issued by a certain Fianna Fáil cumann. The applicant had been recommended by the local TD or some such important person in the Party. This application form, which purported to be a legitimate form, was taken as a virtual guarantee that the applicants from this particular political camp would get first preference for any land being divided in the area. Even in my short term in public life, I have heard allegations made of land being divided on the kitchen or parlour table of certain important personalities in the Government Party. This caused something like consternation in my area on a number of occasions when it transpired that people were allotted land who did not engage in agricultural pursuits of any kind, who did not own land, who did not come from the land and who were in fact engaged in industrial employment. Despite this, they could secure reasonable amounts of land, to the detriment of the legitimate smallholders in the area, who were deriving their livelihood from the land. This is bound, of necessity, to cause anxiety and suspicion in the minds of people that undue political influence from time to time is being brought to bear on the Land Commission in the allotment of land.

I would like to inform the Minister about something which happened in relation to the acquisition and division of the larger estates and I have particularly in mind the Charteris estate in Cahir in my constituency. When this estate was divided, numbers of smallholders in the area, particularly small farmers, were very pleased, until it became known to them the kind of valuation which had been imposed on them. The valuation in this instance was of such an excessive nature that many of the farmers concerned told me that unless they could get some relief from this crushing burden of the valuation imposed, they might well be forced to give up the farms again. I appreciate this may not be within the ambit of the Minister for Lands but I am sure it concerns him to realise what transpires here. It would seem to me that estates of this kind are exceptionally high-rated.

When the land was allotted to those small farmers, the county council made a provisional assessment of valuations, merely dividing the total valuation between the number of allottees concerned and apportioning the valuation and the rates equally on them. This, of course, did not take into account the obvious disparity between lands, good land and bad land, marshy land, rocky land and land fit only for afforestation. I appreciate that this is purely provisional and that the valuation authorities in due course will have regard to the disparity in the valuation of the land allotted to each individual on this particular estate. In the meantime, great hardship is arising for the small farmers concerned. They are quite outspoken in saying that apart from the annuities which they are obliged to repay to the Land Commission, those rates are a very crushing burden. It would be interesting to know what relief of rates will be conceded to such as those in the Budget proposals.

I would ask the Minister to interest himself in the present method of the county council deciding on the provisional valuation, pending proper investigation by the valuation authorities at a later stage and the hardship that can accrue to a small farmer starting out to equip himself on a new holding of this kind. My information with regard to the small farmers who were given land on the Charteris estate in Cahir is that the valuation imposed on them is a millstone around their necks, and I welcome the Minister sending down a valuation officer whose function it would be to apportion the valuation in a more just and equitable fashion. Perhaps the Minister will advise me as to how I should set about securing relief for such farmers. I hope I am not taxing him with a responsibility outside the control of his Department.

I am also concerned about tracts of land which are disposed of by public auction in which the Land Commission seem to take no interest whatsoever. It is disconcerting for a public representative to be told by a group of congests that a farm of a very sizeable nature has been sold in their area to a man who already had more than a fair share of land, and that it was scandal in the extreme that a rancher should be permitted to purchase a sizeable farm which could, and should, be acquired by the Land Commission to bring about the relief of congestion in a particular area. I ask the Minister whether the Land Commission take any notice at all of our daily papers in respect of auctions of this kind, and to what extent they interest themselves in the possible purchase of these tracts of land for the relief of congestion and the provision of economic holdings.

It has been alleged that by reason of the shortage of credit in the Minister's Department the Land Commission were shying away altogether from auctions of this kind. The rumour is abroad that the Land Commission are not prepared to compete on the property market for farms of this kind. If that is so, it will impede all the good work which the Land Commission should be doing. If the Land Commission are not prepared to compete on the open market at auctions of this kind, it seems to me that there is no hope whatsoever for a better deal for the small farmers. I would welcome a statement from the Minister in his concluding remarks that this is not so and that the Land Commission interest themselves in auctions of this kind, that they do compete and are prepared to pay a decent price for land.

Recently my attention was drawn to an estate near my native town which was purchased by a large farmer. Naturally, there was disappointment and distress among the smallholders in the area that the Land Commission did not interest themselves in this particular estate.

I am very pleased that the Land Act which we passed here two years ago has had such a desirable effect in preventing the purchase of land by aliens. Mark you, in most of our constituencies, there are still areas with big estates. I should like the Minister to satisfy himself that the legislation we passed in this House is foolproof and cannot be circumvented in any way. I should also like him to satisfy himself that Irish land is not being purchased under the guise of a company, or a pseudonym, or through auctioneers or solicitors, or any other device. If the Minister is able to make a statement that he is satisfied that this is not happening, it will make many of us content. It would seem that a lot of tightening up is necessary before we are completely satisfied that the Land Act which we passed here has had the desired effect and will not be circumvented by various means.

There is not much more for me to say, Sir, except to congratulate the Minister on bringing in this very laudable scheme so that land which is not being properly worked may be made available to the Land Commission for division among those in need of it. I refer to the scheme whereby pensions, or a gratuity, may be paid to, perhaps, an aged couple or an aged farmer who is no longer able to work the land, or where a farmer is mentally or physically handicapped and is unable to work the land economically. I sincerely hope that this very laudable scheme meets with the desired success. It is to be regretted that up to now there has not been the response to this scheme which many anticipated. Perhaps the Minister can say why there has not been that desired response to what seems to many of us to be a worthwhile proposal, affording a pension and security in the old homestead to those people who are no longer able to work their land. If the many farms which are lying fallow were made available to the Minister and his Department much more could be done for the relief of congestion and the provision of economic holdings on which young, enthusiastic and progressive farmers could provide a decent livelihood for their families and contribute much to the economy.

I should also like to ask the Minister to have regard to the feasibility of opening up many of our lovely tracts of forest land from the point of view of tourism. This would be a tremendous attraction to all of us, particularly the tourists. Before doing so, however, the Minister would have to satisfy himself there was no threat to our forests. I am sure the Minister will be replying to many of these queries later on. I wish the Minister every success in his endeavours to do the things in his Department which we deem can be done to provide better standards for our farmers, our forestry workers and all those under his control.

The debate on these Estimates has ranged very wide which is not unusual, considering their interest for Deputies, particularly Deputies from rural Ireland. Perhaps Deputy Treacy was not here for my opening statement from which he would have gleaned that on the broad front we are providing more money in these Estimates for land, game and forestry than has ever been provided before, together with money to implement the-many new schemes to which I shall refer seriatim later on which we are now introducing for the relief of congestion.

I shall endeavour to meet a number of points raised by Deputies. I want to take some of them in the order in which they were raised. Let me take the question of the allegation of delays in the disposal of land acquired by the Land Commission, which was made by Deputy Flanagan and others in the course of the debate. This, of course, is a matter raised from time to time on Estimates in this Department. Every effort is made to dispose of lands acquired by the Land Commission as readily as possible. There are standing instructions to the effect that lands should not be in the hands of the Land Commission longer than two years, unless where the Commissioners specifically direct otherwise. An exception has to be made where land is destined for migrants because buildings have to be erected, or other improvements carried out, or where the preparation of re-sale proposals has to be deferred in the interests of ensuring that this scheme will be the best possible one. I dealt with this matter fully when replying to the debate on Lands last year.

On 31st March last the Land Commission had in their possession, apart from substantial areas of turbary and inferior quality land, some 52,000 acres of arable land. That such an acreage, however, is not unreasonable can be gauged by the fact that the average allotment, between all classes of land, is something like 185,000 acres. The average annual allotment is something like 35,000 acres. Getting to the nearest figure possible over the past five years, the total amount of land allotted would be about 185,000 acres. Therefore, to have 52,000 acres in the machine, in the course of being dealt with—because this is a continuous process with the Land Commission from year to year—is not an unreasonable figure. Of course, Deputies who do not come from the congested areas may not be aware of the fact that in rearrangement schemes, in many cases, lands are left in the hands of the Land Commission because they cannot get agreement with those concerned in the scheme. In many of those cases, schemes have been held up, to my knowledge, over a number of years. Where you get one recalcitrant farmer in an area who will not surrender one field which is vital to another farmer in the area because of the element of fragmentation, because he holds his great-grandfather put far more manure into it than any other farmer and sits back in that situation, there is nothing the Land Commission can do. In many cases the Land Commission have land on hands through no fault of their own, but because of the failure to get agreement, as we must get in these cases, before such a scheme can go through.

Deputies will be aware of the meticulous examination which must take place in the preparation of a scheme of division. Apropos what Deputy Treacy says, it is not true, to my knowledge, that Land Commission inspectors do not visit everybody within the policy distance. There is a policy distance on an estate to be divided, of a mile in some cases, it may be a half a mile in others, depending on the amount of land available, and all people within that policy distance are normally visited by an inspector of the Land Commission. He does not rely on what the neighbour says. Naturally, he hears what the neighbour says because in many cases some of those people for their own purpose are a bit backward in coming forward about vital statistics in relation to their land or the land in another part of the country some of their friends may own and which they will ultimately possess. But, normally, the practice is that people within the policy distance are visited by a Land Commission inspector.

He reports on each and every one of these and when the scheme is being prepared, the man on the ground, the report of that inspector, is submitted to the inspector in charge of the area. It goes then to the divisional inspector and to the Land Commissioners. Therefore these schemes are scrutinised and settled, not alone by the man in charge of the scheme, in the first instance, but his work is vetted by senior officials up to the Land Commissioners and if they see anything odd with his proposals, on the facts that have been garnered by the inspectors to whom I have referred, then they will change that scheme or question him to justify his proposals. Therefore, this business of the division of land is not done in the haphazard way that seems to be suggested by some Deputies from time to time in this House.

Would the Minister not agree it would be only courteous to inform the applicant who is not being visited, by reason of his being outside the zone, why he is not being visited? Why ignore some of them altogether?

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.

Is there any advisory leaflet on that, as a matter of interest to them?

I understand that each forester has particulars of this scheme. Yes.

There are so many things that have been mentioned in this debate, small in themselves. Would it not be useful to issue a leaflet to be distributed to them, dealing with holiday pay and all that sort of thing that the Minister has mentioned?

I will have that done, I can assure the Deputy, but I do know that this information has been in the hands of foresters for a considerable time.

They are, like T.Ds. and Ministers, some good and some bad.

I agree. I do not say that all my geese are swans but they are supposed, at least, to have this information made clear to those concerned.

Many Deputies made reference to the position as regards employment in forestry and expressed disappointment that staffs had been reduced in the forests. I think I had better say that in this connection—this is generally speaking, outside the position last year which I have dealt with—that the fact must be faced squarely. The prime fact is that costs in forestry have risen very sharply in the past ten years. The cost of labour alone, for instance, has doubled since 1957 and there has not been a comparable increase in the price of forest products. This makes it essential that all costs be carefully scrutinised and that measures be taken by way of the rational use of labour, methods study, mechanisation and the elimination of less essential operations, to reduce costs to the lowest possible level. These objectives are being actively pursued in the Department and it is an indication of the success with which their efforts have been met that many of our forests have been able to absorb an increased workload of management and maintenance operations without any appreciable increase of staff.

There are other forests where, through completion of road programmes, lack of plantable reserve or similar cause, the programme of work was insufficient to absorb the existing labour strength. Here there was no alternative but to lay men off, some of them, unfortunately, with long service. This is not a new feature in proper forestry employment. We always have had this situation at forests and that will continue until forests develop to the stage when there is regular rhythm of operations from planting to felling.

Surely the Minister does not condone the dismissal of men? That could be overcome.

I think it was Deputy Sir Anthony Esmonde who raised this point. There is this provision for people with long service—it used to be 15 years but it is now down to seven years—whereby they can qualify for a gratuity.

What good is a gratuity?

Bí id thost ar feadh nóiméid. Deputy Esmonde suggested this was not known to many of the workers, and I think Deputy Treacy said something to the same effect. I do not know why it should not be known to the workers concerned in so far as, when some of these older men were being laid off, I understand it was brought to their notice that they would qualify for these benefits.

It is a healthy sign of the times to be laying off men with that long service.

This is an important item.

The Deputy has no licence to interrupt. The Minister is concluding.

The Deputy has a licence to ask a question.

The Deputy has already spoken at length on the Estimate.

If some Deputies think there is some reason to bring these regulations to the notice of the forestry workers concerned, I shall do it, but it surprises me that in this day and age they were not fully conversant with the rights to which they are entitled.

It is something that should be included in the leaflet, because I was in touch with the Minister in relation to the case of a man over 60 and it was only from the Minister's letter I discovered and the man discovered there was such provision.

In case there is a feeling that these provisions are not well known, I shall undertake to the House to have them conveyed to the foresters and in particular, to bring them to the attention of those concerned. We have much better records now than formerly and it is easier to trace the men who would be regarded as people with unbroken service.

The Minister is accepting that there must be a reduction in the number employed now on forestry work?

The Deputy has come in very late in the evening and he has not listened to what I have been saying on these matters. He was not sufficiently interested except to come in at this stage to interrupt.

I am not interrupting; I am asking questions.

The Deputy can read what I said in the debate. The problem of rising labour costs not matched by short-term improvement in timber prices is not a phenomenon peculiar to Ireland. Virtually every country in Europe has been facing this situation over the past few years, and forestry authorities from Scandinavia to the Mediterranean are engaged in multiple lines of action to offset increased labour costs by higher productivity and a more thrifty use of resources. Methods of reducing cost, in order to keep Europe's forestry on a competitive basis, was indeed one of the main matters under discussion as recently as last week at a session of the FAO European Forestry Commission. We in Ireland have the advantage that our relatively heavy forestry investment programme spurred us to early action towards increasing productivity, and we can indeed claim to have set a headline in at least some respects.

We cannot, however, afford to relax our efforts. The competition from Europe, and particularly Canada and which is now emerging from the South American countries, is becoming very intense, and production costs must be watched at all times. There are some factors like outside mechanisation, factors like keeping down competing vegetation that is now being largely done by herbicide, which formerly gave employment by way of hand labour, and which is being replaced by these new methods. However, the overall picture is that forestry costs are being watched in so far as it is possible for the Department to watch them.

Deputy Mrs. Hogan O'Higgins made a plea for the introduction of more hardwoods into our planting as a means of improving visual amenity. We do endeavour to plant hardwoods where the ground is suitable, but it should be remembered that hardwoods demand high quality ground and shelter and the areas which she mentioned around Loughrea would be quite unsuitable. We get letters on this subject from many people throughout the country. As I say, I am very anxious to plant more hardwoods, but it must be appreciated by all these organisations such as "Trees for Ireland" and other tree-lovers that hardwoods can only be planted in fairly good ground and that it is only when we take over old woodlands, or perhaps a very small bit of land other than what we get for usual forestry purposes, that we can produce hardwoods. However, we do plant as many hardwoods as the type of land we have allows us to plant.

I do not know that there are any other matters of main interest to the House that have been raised in connection with the Forestry Estimate. I want to emphasise, just as I did in dealing with the Lands Estimate, that the unit intake for the machine of forestry is coming down each year. The number of transactions are accordingly going up and this is a process that will continue. I should perhaps mention one new development in connection with both Forestry and the Land Commission, that in the pilot areas, the Land Commission inspectors will find out whether there is any potential forestry land in the area with which they are dealing, and I am assigning a special inspector from the Forestry Division to deal with and to correlate this work. Therefore with this new combing-out that is being carried on in the pilot areas, if there is any potential for forestry, if there is a commonage, if the man on the spot finds out there is a possibility of getting suitable forestry land, there is a man from the Forestry Division waiting specifically to call urgent attention to the acquisition of that land.

In this way we shall, as it were, be going out in the field much more after potential forestry land than in the past. The Land Commission officials also in scheming mountain areas are now requested to furnish to the Forestry Division, as they are working on this land, information as to whether there is potential forestry land there for a forestry build-up. We must do this in order to try to keep up the intake into the forestry machine. It is getting more and more difficult to maintain the necessary plantable reserve and, of course, the bigger the plantable reserve, the less undulations there will be in the employment figures for forestry workers. I am hopeful that with the increased provision made this year and the new avenues of approach towards the acquisition of more forestry land, we shall be able to report an improvement in the position when I come to the House next year. I do not think there is any other point that I have not dealt with adequately.

I know the Minister has dealt with it to some extent but is it not discouraging that forestry, one of the major means for employment in the rural areas, should be decreasing rather than increasing? The Minister is well aware that those who are now laid off from forestry employment may not be there, and certainly will not be in the rural areas, if there is an expansion in the forestry industry. They will leave the rural areas.

What I said was that, because of the decrease last year in the programme, according to the advice I have been given and on my assessment of the situation, there was a reduction of two and a half per cent in the labour force.

What would that be in men?

Around 150.

Over the whole country?

It is attributable to improved methods, herbicides and so on——

It is attributable solely to lack of funds.

Perhaps the Deputy would allow me to answer the leader of his Party? I mentioned improved methods, herbicides, better substitutes in relation to handling, new methods which have eliminated a great deal of hand labour, and so on; these new techniques and new methods have resulted in a reduction in employment. New methods and new techniques are something we have to face.

A shocking pity from the point of view of rural employment.

Vote put and agreed to.
Top
Share