Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 2 Nov 1971

Vol. 256 No. 5

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

Debate resumed on the following motion:

That the Vote be referred back for reconsideration.

—(Deputy L'Estrange.)

Mr. Nolan

I am sure the Minister and his officials must have felt pleased with themselves when they left here last Thursday having heard Deputy L'Estrange, as Fine Gael spokesman for Lands, compliment them on the work of the past year. Deputy Tully also complimented the Minister and the officials. I should like to be associated with that and also compliment the Minister on being courageous in dealing with this problem of land which is such an emotional one for Irish people. Down the years the debate on the Department of Lands, particularly as far as rural Deputies are concerned, has always been an occasion for attacking the Land Commission, the Minister and the Government. No matter what the Land Commission, the Minister or the Government could do by legislation or otherwise they could not satisfy the land hunger of rural Ireland. This is principally due to the fact that there is not sufficient land available for those requiring it, the smallholders and the people who, if they had land, would make excellent farmers.

In the past few years there has been a big change in land acquisition largely because the big estates, or most of them, have been acquired and the Land Commission now have to go into the open market for smaller holdings of 60, 100 or 200 acres and compete with farmers who are possibly trying to build up big estates. While land bonds as a means of payment for large estates may have been acceptable in years gone by I am sure the Minister, as a legal man, is aware of the complaints passed on to us by auctioneers and solicitors from people who are selling farms about the land bond problems they have. I cannot understand why we cannot have a change in this. I know that the Minister is now buying more land for cash but I cannot understand why we cannot use capital moneys—similar to those used for housing and schools—in buying land, rather than land bonds. Every speaker in this debate and everybody who has spoken in past years has been critical of land bonds which are not an acceptable means of paying for land. This is one reason why even auctioneers—although under the latest Land Act they will get commission on sales from the Land Commission—are not disposed to sell land to the Land Commission who so badly need it.

In the past few days there was comment on the section of the Land Act under which the Land Commission buy land from old people paying them a certain amount in cash and giving them a pension. As the Minister said, 33 applicants have availed of this scheme resulting in 1,672 acres being acquired by the Land Commission. When the scheme was first introduced in the 1965 Land Act it was acclaimed by farmers, farmers' organisations and by the public as one way not only of getting more land but also of making sure that land which was available and which was non-productive would be used for the relief of congestion. Some 33 people have sold their farms and accepted these pensions but there are many reasons, apart from those mentioned previously, why people did not avail of this scheme. One is illustrated by the case of the old bachelor living on a farm who has a nephew or niece waiting for him to die to take over the farm. Now, with the introduction of this provision, such a nephew or niece is more interested in the bachelor or spinster farmer. Even though only 33 people have availed of the scheme, a great deal more land has become more productive because the relatives of the old people are interested in it.

The Minister referred to the self migration scheme for congested areas. He said:

I shall arrange that the scheme be examined with a view to improving its attractiveness.

I am glad he said that. Coming as I do from an area that is designated as non-congested but an area in which many people may be surprised to know we have congestion so far as smallholders are concerned, I welcome this. When reviewing this scheme I ask the Minister to consider allowing this section to apply to the whole of the State. I am thinking of the small farmer with 25 or 35 acres who sees a viable farm of 70 or 80 acres adjacent to him being sold. He has no capital and cannot obtain capital from the ACC, the Land Commission or from a bank to buy the farm. I should like the Minister to allow such farmers to avail of the scheme outlined in the 1965 Act under which they could go to the Land Commission saying they wanted to buy such a farm and offer their own farm for the relief of congestion in the area. You could have three or four small farmers in the 25-30-acre class who might be interested in buying the 80-acre farm.

Someone may suggest that, if the Land Commission make money available to a small farmer to buy an 80-acre farm close to him, the price of land will be increased. I can see no reason, if there are three applicants, why the officials of the Land Commission could not go down, as they do now in the case of migration, and say: "Right. We select candidate B. He is the man we recommend to the Land Commission to buy this farm." They would then estimate the market value of the farm and give this small farmer the opportunity of having a viable holding. In turn, of course, this would also create further viable holdings because the 35 acres he had handed over to the Land Commission could be used to bring up the size of the holdings of the other small farmers.

The Minister said he will have a look at this section of the Act. Will he consider extending it to other parts of the country? We are on the threshold of entry to the EEC. We hear Mansholt and many other people talking about the small farmer under EEC conditions. I do not know what the Mansholt Plan is. I am not saying anything against Mr. Mansholt who is a very able parliamentarian, who was a very able Minister for Agriculture and who is, I think, a very able Commissioner. So far he has produced about seven or eight plans but to my knowledge none of them has yet been adopted by the EEC Commissioners or by the Council of Ministers. We still have to wait for a definite decision to be made in Europe as to what a viable holding is.

A viable holding in modern terms must be larger than the one now defined in the Land Commission regulations, that is, 40 to 45 acres of good land or more if the land is of varied quality. I think it was Deputy L'Estrange who referred to regional areas. We have divisional areas in the Land Commission. We have one in the south-east with its headquarters in Carlow. I presume there is one in Galway and others elsewhere. I can never understand why regard was not had in the Land Act to the fact that in different parts of the country there are different types of farming. In the Midlands there is mixed farming. People are in beef, in milk and in tillage. This type of farmer cannot rotate his crops on a small holding. Take beet for example. You cannot grow beet in the same field for a period of five years due to eelworm or some other disease which attacks beet from time to time. Therefore a farmer who, according to the Land Commission, has a viable holding of 45 acres and who is growing eight acres of beet cannot have proper rotation without taking conacre, or hiring land as it is sometimes called.

From my experience as a rural Deputy, I think that the Land Commission plan for a viable farm of 45 acres of good land, or more if the land is of varied quality, is outdated and outmoded. While a certain standard of living was accepted by farmers 40 to 45 years ago, today a farmer would require 100 acres of land of varied qualities, or 80 to 90 acres of good land, to have the standard of living which the Land Commission, the Minister and every Member of this House would like him to have. The most recent figures I have suggest that a viable holding in Sweden is considered to be somewhere in the region of 130 acres. We should be thinking of that figure in any future creation of holdings by the Land Commission.

Coming to the question of land division, more and more we hear people saying: "So-and-So got land but So-and-So should have got it." We all know, as I said earlier, that one of the problems is that we have too many eligible applicants for the amount of land we have. No two cases of land division are the same because no two farms are the same size, and no two areas have the same set-up so far as the size of farms and the number of suitable applicants are concerned. The Land Commission's scheme is the best scheme. If some people who criticise the scheme adversely were asked to do so they could not prepare a better one. The first category of people who must be compensated in some way are workers who become redundant on the farm. People who are suitable, who have stock and capital, who are married and have a family and who would make suitable farmers, are provided with a viable holding.

The second category is the uneconomic holder living within one mile of the estate. There are many other categories of people who would probably make excellent farmers, such as people who hire land all the year round and people with four or five acres of land who make a living from the land. If they are to get land, the uneconomic holder and the man who has been declared redundant cannot get it. This will cause more problems in the future because the estates which will be available for division in the future will not be anything like the estates which were available ten, 15 or 20 years ago. When Deputy L'Estrange was speaking last Thursday he mentioned something about a double annunity. I do not know what he was referring to.

Mr. L'Estrange

The full annuity.

Mr. Nolan

We know that when the Land Commission acquire an estate they give to uneconomic holders within one mile of it sufficient land to bring them up to 40 to 45 acres of good land and they charge the economic price of that land. In other words, they practically buy it from the Land Commission on hire purchase. It is not a double annuity. The mistake probably is that where a person is migrated from one area to another he pays half the annuity.

Mr. L'Estrange

That is right.

Mr. Nolan

It is completely different from saying that a man is paying a double annuity. The migrant gets it at half the price and the other half is paid for by the State.

Another point I should like to raise in connection with the activities of the Land Commission is the question of housing. I accept that the housing of farmers is not the function of the Land Commission. Their function is the redistribution of land, the creation of viable holdings, forestry work, et cetera. I welcomed the Minister's decision to give £500 by way of loan to a farmer to reconstruct his premises. I know many small farmers who were very glad to avail of the £500 to supplement the State grant and the local authority grant for reconstruction. A small farmer can get £500 to supplement the grant and any loan he can obtain to build a new house. To me this figure is ridiculous. It should be increased to something like £1,000. The small uneconomic farmer is the lowest paid person in this country today. He finds it most difficult to provide his own house. The lower paid worker such as the roadworker, the forestry worker or the farm labourer, will be provided with a house by the local authority but those of us who are members of local authorities know that if a small farmer applies to a local authority to be rehoused the first problem the local authority are faced with is to get sanction. The second problem is to get a contractor to build an isolated house. The Land Commission seem to be more fortunate in this respect than the local authorities. They get contractors to build these farmsteads. Some body like the Land Commission must provide the small farmer with a house. The £500 reconstruction loan is all right but a loan of £500 to a small farmer to build his own house is far too small and the figure should be somewhere in the region of £2,000.

I should like to put on record my appreciation of and congratulations to the Minister and the officials of the Land Commission for the excellent houses they are now providing for migrants, particularly those with the hayshed and lean-to, which they have been providing in the last few years. Up to two or three years ago they built some sort of house for two cows, a piggery and maybe a house for a cow and calf. The three-span hayshed and the lean-to is a big advance.

A qualified applicant for an addition to his holding is usually a married man with a family. He has been struggling on an uneconomic holding for a number of years, say on 25 acres. The Land Commission give him a further 25 acres. He is immediately stuck for capital to stock that land, to till it, fertilise it, sow it and even reap it. I know the Land Commission now have closer liaison with the Agricultural Credit Corporation and with the advisory services but if the Agricultural Credit Corporation do not give a small farmer the capital to work the additional land he has got or unless he can get credit through some other source, even the Land Commission, he will find it very difficult to continue.

There are a few things I have mentioned which I should like to see attended to. I refer particularly to self-migration, to housing and to the problem of getting capital for the small farmer who gets an addition to his holding. If the latter cannot be done through the Land Commission then it should be done through some other Department.

Mr. Donnellan

The big problem facing the Minister and the Land Commission is the 130,000 to 140,000 small farmers who live on between five and 30 acres of land. The Minister represents a rural constituency similar to the one which I represent. I am sure he is well aware of the problems of people who are trying to live on that amount of land. These people have a great number of social and other problems. This is the big problem the Land Commission must try to solve.

The average price of land for agricultural purposes last year was around £220 per acre. The average price of land for agricultural purposes in the EEC countries is over £600 an acre. I would advise people who have land to hold on to it to the last for the simple reason that if and when we become members of the European Community the value of land will increase very much. People should do what they can, even in tough circumstances, to hold on to their land.

Much good work has been done by the Minister and by the Land Commission but I should like to see a much more positive policy. First of all, the Government should pass an Act prohibiting all persons who are not already farmers from buying land. This will have to be done if we are to solve the problem of the small farmer. This problem is being solved to a degree by emigration or by some of them, though not many, being absorbed into industry. The Government should pass an Act to prevent people like contractors and professional people who have the necessary capital, or who find it easy to get the necessary capital to buy farms, from doing so. If the Government are really interested in solving the problem of the small farmer this is one way to start.

The Minister knows that I probably ask more questions regarding the purchase and division of land than any other Deputy. When a farm comes up for sale the Land Commission usually tell the people they will buy it if they can compete. Deputy Nolan spoke of farms of 80 to 100 acres. I am talking of farms of from 20 to 40 acres, or maybe even less. If a farm of, say, 20 acres comes up for sale it is usually the farmer with 100 or 150 acres who has the money to buy it and if he has not got the money he finds it easier to raise that money than would a small farmer. If a man with 30 acres got that 20 acres he would be approaching a viable unit. If we allow people, regardless of how much land they have, to go on purchasing land, then the more they have the more they will get. If the Land Commission and the Minister are genuinely interested in solving the problem of the small landholders not alone should they introduce the legislation I have already mentioned to prohibit all people not already engaged in agriculture from purchasing land but those farmers who already have 100 acres of good land should also be prohibited from purchasing land, particularly in areas where there are a large number of uneconomic holdings. In the eyes of the Land Commission at present an economic holding is one of between 40 to 45 acres of good land. If the Land Commission are serious about solving the problem this is what they should do.

When land is being divided all those people within a statute mile by road have their cases investigated. The Land Commission try to give special consideration to the family man over the bachelor, but in many cases a bachelor with a considerable holding, even though he may be in his sixties, may qualify for land. The Minister should forget about this mile limit because often there are people just outside the mile limit who are entitled to land.

I put down a question about the division of land in a place called Aughagad in Roscommon. The Land Commission have held the 600 or 700 acres for quite a while. I was not altogether satisfied with the way the Minister answered my question and I was not allowed to ask very many supplementaries so I decided to raise the matter on the Adjournment. I subsequently found that I was not entitled to do so because it was a matter for the Commission and not for the Minister. If Deputy Flanagan is Minister for Lands he should be the boss and answerable in all circumstances.

It is common belief amongst the farmers in the area I represent that political influence plays a big part in the division of land. Many people have come to me with the idea that I can get them land; I am sure they have gone to other people and asked them to do the same. I would like the Minister to state clearly that there is no such thing as political influence and that the Land Commission are an independent body doing their job. It is up to the Commission to divide the land fairly and they should do just that.

On the 1st March of this year the Land Commission had in their possession 1,272 acres in the Dunmore parish area. I have been pressing the Land Commission to divide this land for some time. The department in the Custom House in Galway who deal with the division of land in the Dunmore parish area have indicated to me that the land would probably be divided more quickly if they had sufficient staff to do the job. I believe the Land Commission in Dublin are over-staffed. It is a great pity that the Commission do not send some of the Dublin staff to Galway in order to help divide the land in the Dunmore parish area and in other parts of my constituency.

When the Land Commission buy land there is usually a house standing on the land and in many cases the house is in good condition. It is quite possible that some of the applicants for land in the area will qualify for this house. I know of a man who had to wait ten years to get a house and by the time he was given the house it needed many repairs. If it was the Commission's intention to give the man this house anyway what was the point of waiting until the house rotted before giving it to him?

Another problem is where the Land Commission acquire land on which there is a house and then find that no one in the area wants the house. What are the Land Commission to do? I have a case at the moment in the Clonberne area of Ballinasloe, where a family are living in very bad housing conditions. As far as I am aware the officers in Galway are looking very sympathetically at this case but the problem is in the Dublin office. I should be much obliged if the Dublin office would give a decision on the matter. There are many other similar instances in County Galway. I would like the Minister to look into the whole problem of houses on estates which the Land Commission have acquired and which are not needed to house the applicants for the land. I suggest the Commission should give such a house to a family who are living in the area and who badly need to be rehoused.

In his opening speech the Minister said that extra land has been acquired for afforestation purposes. The amount planted in Galway has been insufficient. I am sure the Minister is aware of the case between Dunmore and Cloonfad where the Land Commission planted a large area which was subsequently burned out, much to the annoyance of the local people. No one really knows what happened except that it was burned out. If there is to be any further planting in the area I would appeal to the Minister to ensure that the necessary precautions will be taken so that damage of the same magnitude will not occur again.

I was lucky enough recently to be a member of a delegation of Senators and TDs who went to Strasbourg. We travelled by train from Paris to Strasbourg and were able to have a good look at the French countryside. I was impressed by the use which was made of every available acre of ground. I was also impressed at the amount of land planted in Germany. The Land Commission could learn a great deal from the way in which the Germans utilise land which is not fit for agricultural uses.

A statement was made some time ago that the Department of Lands were going to be moved to Castlebar. As the Minister is aware, I am very interested in the Land Commission and I would like him to give me an indication as to what the situation is now regarding the Land Commission. Will it remain in Merrion Square or will it be removed to Castlebar? I appeal to the Minister to take note of what I have said. All the points I have raised are worthy of consideration but there are a few suggestions which would be very beneficial to the Land Commission in regard to solving the problems of the people I represent in the constituency of north-east Galway.

Mr. Desmond

The Labour Party welcome the Minister's comprehensive statement before the House and we have some observations to make on it. Perhaps through no fault of his, as the political head of the Department, and through no fault of the public servants in charge of the Department, we must once again refer to the administrative cloud, the reorganisational cloud, which hangs over the Department and their future in the general administration of the State. It has to be pointed out that the Minister anticipated, had political life been normal in this country, that he would either be redundant or rationalised or he would be in charge of another Department by 1971.

We must put on record that there is no intimation that the recommendations of the Public Services Organisation Review Group in relation to the Department of Lands will, in fact, be implemented. I do not know what happens at Cabinet level but I gather that so transfixed are the Cabinet at the moment with their own internal gut politics and so general—I do not include the Minister in this reference—is the mediocrity of a great deal of their political approach and general incapacity to get to grips with a Cabinet agenda that the role of the Department of Lands does not seem to be the subject of a necessary discussion. It is important to point out, therefore, that 2¼ years ago the review group specifically recommended in paragraph 26.7.1:

There is a number of clear logical reasons why the Departments of Agriculture and Lands should be combined, the principal of which are:

(a) The opportunity of securing closer co-odination and planning for the agricultural functions of the Government.

(b) The possibility of co-ordinating more closely, and managing more effectively, the many field activities involved.

It is administrative nonsense and political folly of the first magnitude that these recommendations should remain unco-ordinated in the context of policy formation, from the point of view of planning a time-table and of a general execution by single administrative governmental authority. The case has been clearly made for the fusion of both Departments and also for the fusion of the arterial drainage function of the Office of Public Works into a broader Department, but nothing has been done. I have had no discussion with the Minister on this but one senses his frustration, as one of the four senior Minister now in the Government, at having to work at half capacity. The Devlin Review Group were set up in September, 1966, and presented this report in August, 1969, but literally nothing has been done to-date. We must record our serious concern and regret regarding this.

The Minister, during the course of his statement, referred to the provision of life annuities under section 6 of the Land Act, 1965. He pointed out that this section provides basic authority for the scheme of life annuities for elderly, incapacitated or blind persons who might voluntarily sell their interest in land to the Land Commission. The Minister is, perhaps, talking with his tongue in his cheek when he says that this has had but a moderate success and also when he talks about the very attractive features of the scheme. I fully appreciate the difficulties facing the Minister in this regard but the reality is that only 33 people are now on the life annuity pay roll following the sale of their lands to the Land Commission. That is in relation to a scheme which commenced early in 1967, so that this scheme, which has commendable features, only attracted about seven people each year. It could not, therefore, be asserted that this scheme has, in any way, made a significant contribution. The objective of the life annuity scheme which was to facilitate land structure reform should now be the subject of immediate review by the Government and a very sharp review by the Minister, who would be in a position to present more attractive terms. I suppose we have no option but to hold out greater inducement to those people to part with their land in order to make this scheme the success we would all wish it to be in the future of land reform, of which a great deal still remains to be done.

This is a voluntary scheme but we urge that there should be a full scale review of it after over three years effective operation to ensure that its various provisions will be fully analysed and that more attractive terms will be brought forward so that we can have a better system of life annuities introduced.

There is great scope for such an improved scheme. In 1966 there were 23,000 women farmers, almost half of whom were more than 65 years of age. We now have 44,000 male farmers of more than 65 years of age, and another 45,000 younger than 65, on holdings of not more than 30 acres. This comes to an alarming aggregate and it has been referred to in a paper by Dr. Atwood on the structure of Irish agriculture and its development. He referred to the population census and stated:

About 42,000 of them were in the 11 western counties and 46,000 were in the rest of the country. This clearly indicates that there is a clear and viable future for a large number of farmers in the west, although the number of non-viable farmers in the west was twice as large in the 11 western counties as in the rest of the country.

That means there is the considerable total of 112,000 farmers, many of whom could not be in the viable category, normally speaking. Most certainly there is a very large number of non-viable farmers and therefore there is need for the new annuity scheme and for the various other efforts being made by the Land Commission. There is still scope for a great deal more work in the seventies with a view to changing radically the land reform process.

In his paper, Dr. Atwood also stated that more than one-third of the farmers in the west are in the viable category compared to 55 per cent in the rest of the State. We believe a much more comprehensive approach is now necessary, including the payment of welfare assistance on a somewhat more flexible basis than hitherto and more closely linked to the structural reform policy.

I do not think we should throw up our hands in horror, as we have been doing, at the prospect of major structural reform in the west. Many in this House have tended to do that. There is considerable need for a fresh look at Government policy which has been stagnant for so long, through no fault of the Minister, Deputy Seán Flanagan, let me add, who two or three years ago was able to rouse an Ard-Fheis when he spoke of the need for a completely fresh look at our present system.

We have had available to us statistical data and policy alternatives but no consideration has been given to these reports and alternatives. They have been completely underestimated by the House. We have had, for instance, the report of the Committee on the Review of State Expenditure which also referred to the scheme at present in operation. There we had the pleadings of public servants in relation to State expenditure to the effect that we should try to get to grips with this problem. However, no special policy has emerged from either the Department of Lands or the Land Commission.

Those are the main points I wish to make in regard to that section of the Minister's statement. I wish him well in any efforts he may make to bring about a rational land policy. Any such rationalisation schemes will have to be based on the economic realities of viable land undertakings throughout the country and we should not be so preoccupied with the 45-acre farm unit which was almost written into the Statute Book as a concept of Cabinet thinking.

Dealing with other sections of the Minister's statement I welcome the information about Grennanstown near Athboy where a group of four Kerry families have been selected for the first experiment in group farming. There has been a peculiarly undesirable attitude towards county migrants taking up such occupancies and the only analogy I can readily think of is the attitude, the intellectual jealousy, to the Labour spokesman on Foreign Affairs. This has been the attitude towards group farming and towards those who surrendered their original holdings and took over 230 acres at Athboy. I wish them well and I hope that development on a study basis will be adopted in our agricultural system throughout the country.

I also welcome the Minister's reference in regard to the operation of section 45 of the 1965 Land Act. There are those who politically "do their thing", as we say, about the vesting of interest in land to non-qualified persons. The Land Commission, under section 45 of the Act, gave consent to the vesting of 3,000 acres. In the public interest, the Minister should elaborate on that part of the statement, especially where he said that a substantial proportion of the acreage involved consisted of the types of property which could hold no attraction for the ordinary Irish purchaser. What were the criteria with regard to sales to outsiders? The Minister might give us some general indications of what was involved in sales to non-nationals.

I also welcome the increased acquisition of land for our general afforestation programme. The Forestry Division have always lived up to their good reputation in the past. In 1970-71 we acquired 34,000 acres, and in the current year we hope to achieve a gross intake of 40,000 acres. We are reaping the benefit of the progress made following the restructuring of the Division. The increased land acquisition shows a big improvement since 1969-70. This augurs well for the future. There is a lack of public appreciation for this programme which is unspectacular but involves a great deal of work. There are now about 500,000 acres of forestry plantations in the country. The cost of maintaining, protecting and developing these planations is growing. Forestry is a tremendous national asset. The forestry programme reflects great credit on the far-sighted individuals employed in the public service in the Forestry Division. These people have never indulged in any song or dance about their activities but they have succeeded in transforming great tracts of the countryside and have created a national asset of some consequence.

In the latter half of the year forestry development will employ 100 workers more than had been envisaged in the original Estimate laid before the House. The Minister emphasised that the public at large have now a great appreciation of the nature trails which have been made available by the forestry and wild life service. With my family I have visited some of the nature trails. These trails, particularly on the eastern seaboard where there are very few environmental recreational facilities, have meant a great deal to a great number of families living in suburban, concrete wildernesses. The list of such trails which has been distributed through Bord Fáilte and the regional organisations, should be made available to secondary schools, vocational schools and to primary teachers. Members of this House have received information about these nature trails. Such information should be widely distributed to the school-going population. There is a vast potential in the trails which have been opened up recently in the forests. Our people will appreciate the natural amenities. These trails should be used extensively by the public.

I wish to congratulate the Minister on the good work he has done. I wish to comment on the fact that forecasts of the timber production in the new forests are being undertaken. When I was a trade union official we had long and confused discussions with industrial interests. Invariably the data produced by the public was not very useful in terms of statistical forecasting. The data was regarded with suspicion. I never shared the denunciation, which was prelevant, of the difficult work done. The forecasts have now proved to be effectively accurate. The new forecast will give even greater information up to the year 2000. Some people have been sending memoranda since the 1960s to the Government. We will have to accept the veracity of the information now being made available. This information is extremely useful in planning the development of an industry and can act as a major incentive to the timber industry, enabling people to plan ahead effectively.

These are my observations to the Minister. I hope that if and when we come back the Minister, Deputy Seán Flanagan, will give us any information he has. On our return I would hope to see the Devlin Report recommendations implemented even if that means a great internal upheaval within the Department. It is unfortunate that a Minister who, contrary to what some people may think, has the capacity and talent for running a Department has not been given an opportunity to take action even in relation to his work on conservation. I believe that kind of policy responsibility could have been devolved on him during the past 12 months.

I would make one final plea to the Minister, that he would bring forward as quickly as possible the game legislation promised by him. There are many genuine interests urgently awaiting this legislation. It should be announced next week by the Minister before we have this famous vote and before Deputies put political expediency before their principles. This legislation, if introduced, will go down in Irish history as a significant contribution to conservation, and there should be no further delay in bringing it before the House.

Mr. Hussey

The Estimate for the Department of Lands interests every rural Deputy. Everyone who is elected for a rural area will agree that at least 75 per cent of our time as Deputies is taken up dealing with Land Commission business. Therefore, it is vital to all of us that this Estimate would be as satisfactory as we would like it, because this is something on which we will have to answer to our constituents at a later date.

The Department of Lands, including the Land Commission, is one Government Department that comes in for a fair share of criticism from various people, people who are anxious to obtain additional land, people who are connected with land in one way or another. However, by and large, I think the Land Commission down through the years have done a very good job. There is a lot that we would still like to see done, but they are dealing with a very difficult problem. Land is something that is sacred to the Irish people, and they are very critical of any change that might take place. If any new Act or new regulations are introduced they are very cagey about these and are not inclined to accept them as fast as some of us would like.

One instance of this was the Land Act, 1965. There was great ballyhoo about this Act at that time. It was then the subject matter of an election in Galway North-East and the Opposition parties declared from every platform that if this Land Act was accepted the Land Commission would have power to take over land from bachelors and elderly people against their will. The intervening years have proved how false these statements were; in fact, if there is any criticism I would offer on that Land Act it is that it did not go half far enough. It is time that the Minister and his officials had another look at it and made it more attractive in view of their experience to date.

There is one section of that Act which I thought would be attractive to the West of Ireland, that is section 6, which provided basic authority for a scheme of life annuities for elderly, incapacitated or blind persons who voluntarily sell their land or their interest in their land to the Land Commission. I had hoped that that section of the Land Act would be very acceptable and that it would go a long way towards helping to solve the problem of congestion in the West of Ireland. However, I am afraid it has been a complete failure, and the fact that only 33 people availed of it to date is proof of that. I do not know what is wrong with that provision. Apparently the terms offered are not acceptable to people. Goodness knows there are plenty of elderly people and others in the West of Ireland who could and, I am sure, would sell their land to the Land Commission if the price was attractive. There is a great problem in regard to fragmentation and congestion. No matter how much land the Land Commission acquire it will take a long time to solve all the problems that exist.

We had great hopes two years ago when the Minister for Lands announced this scheme of part-time employment for small farmers. This went down very well in the West of Ireland and I would be only too glad if the necessary employment could be provided. It is impossible for the small farmer to provide a decent standard of living for himself and his family. Unless these farmers have some other income from industry or some other kind of employment, I am afraid there will be more and more of them leaving their farms. This is one section of the Land Act I would like to see the Minister delve into with a view to improving it, if possible.

Then there is the scheme of migration from the West of Ireland. This is one thing of which I, as a rural Deputy, am not too fond. In most cases we are taking the best farmers from the West of Ireland and transplanting them in the midlands. To me this does not seem right. There are enough people leaving the West of Ireland already without having a Government Department contributing towards migration. I am told it costs a lot of money to migrate a family to the midlands now. If that extra money was put into the acquisition of land in the West it would help to solve the congestion problem there on their own doorstep.

We have had experience in the West of Ireland of long delays in the division of land. In recent times this has been overcome to a greater or lesser degree. This is a situation we would all like to see improved still further because it is terrible to see farms left for five or six years, derelict, nobody caring about them; people's patience is worn out by the time they get them. As I say, things are improving. Perhaps if more staff were made available to the local offices, the work could be dealt with more expeditiously. Nobody likes to see land lying idle for a long time. The question of the shortage of staff should be looked into to ensure that the acquisition and division of land can go ahead as quickly as possible.

It is also mentioned in the Minister's brief that the Land Commission, before they give out land now, are manuring, liming and draining it and removing all scrub, rushes and so on. This is a very good development. It gives the allottees a very good start and is an encouragement to them to do the best they can with the land.

People in rural areas are very critical of land bonds and there is, I think, a move away from such bonds at the moment. People living in rural areas are not in the habit of dealing in stocks and shares and, even if the price offered in land bonds is a good one, they are not inclined to accept it. It would be better for everybody if the Land Commission paid cash for all land bought.

There is a loan of £500 paid by the Land Commission to enable farmers to build or improve their own houses. This should be increased since the price of materials and everything else has gone up. This figure of £500 must be increased.

With regard to afforestation, there are areas in my constituency I should love to see planted. They are useless as they are. If they were planted they could form the basis of some industry in the future.

Mr. O'Hara

I join with other speakers in thanking the Minister for his comprehensive statement on the activities of his Department. Deputy L'Estrange seldom compliments anybody but, on this occasion, he complimented the Minister for Lands on the progress made in his Department. I join with Deputy L'Estrange now in complimenting the Minister and the officials of the Department.

The Land Commission is often criticised but it is true to say that in the Land Commission we have as good a body of civil servants both in the offices and in the field as one would find in any other Department. I say that as a result of experience over many years. Very often when criticisms are voiced and one takes the trouble to make inquiries one finds that the criticisms are unwarranted. The fact is that the officials are merely administering the law passed by this Parliament and carrying out the various rules, regulations and directives.

Deputy Hussey said that 75 per cent of his work is taken up with matters relating to land. That is not my experience. I suppose regions differ. Land values are probably far higher in Deputy Hussey's constituency because of the proximity of Galway than they would be in my area. I do not dispute the Deputy's figure.

For the past few years the numbers applying for additions to their holdings are decreasing. The number today is substantially less than it was when I first entered this House. Maybe, that is because I am on the Opposition side of the House and constituents think I would not have the same pull that I would have were I on the Fianna Fáil side of the House. Like myself, the Minister is very blunt and outspoken, even at the risk of losing a couple of dozen votes. When people come to me about land I advise them that it is quite possible their neighbours are up with the Minister for Lands or with Deputy Finn bent on the same errand and I ask them how they think it possible for the Land Commission officials to divide land if TD's are dividing it across a table. However, people are new becoming educated in that respect. We can make representations and inspectors look into the representations. If the representations are worthwhile they make some little changes in their programme. They do not claim to be know-alls. They do the best they can to find satisfactory solutions.

We have, I believe, been drifting along in our Land Commission policy for the past few years, to say nothing at all about entering the EEC, the Common Market, activities in Brussels and London, and the repercussions here. I cannot understand why we have had no major announcement from the Minister for Lands in connection with the overall policy of his Department. Perhaps, as on previous occasions, he will make some such statement when he is replying to the debate. I hope he will do so because the Minister and his Department have a vital role to play in relation to our probable membership of the EEC. I shall be very happy if we join the Community because I am aware that such a link would have many advantages for us.

Since the Land Commission took over from the old CDB they have tried to acquire land wherever possible and, perhaps, at the lowest price possible. In the old days small allocations of three to five acres were given to smallholders who, in the opinion of the Commission were most deserving of the land. I suppose that at that particular time these small allocations were helpful because the way of life of the people was quite different then from what it is now and, of course, the cost of living was much lower than the present day rate. However, that policy is long outdated.

In my opinion it is ridiculous to continue travelling the road that we have been travelling for so many years particularly in the light of our accession to the EEC within a short time. Now that Britain has decided to join the Community, we have no alternative but to do likewise. People should be made aware of the conditions that they will encounter within the Community. A number of people have asked me already what will be the policy of the Department in these new circumstances. The present policy of the Land Commission bears no relation to the situation with which we will be confronted within the EEC. Without intending any disrespect either to the Minister or to any of his predecessors, I would go so far as to say that because of what will be the position in the future, a lot of what has been done so far has been wasted effort. Some years ago the Land Commission migrated people from the West of Ireland to the midlands where they gave them holdings of 20 or 25 acres each and expected them to eke out a living from these holdings. Perhaps for those who might have had a little capital this might have been possible particularly if a man's family were old enough to obtain employment locally. In many cases the older members of families went to work either in the city or in England and helped to subsidise their parents and the younger members of the families. Down through the years Deputies here, particularly Deputies from the West, advocated increasing the area to 30 acres or more. Eventually, the area was increased to as much as 50 or 60 acres but in the circumstances of today even a holding of that size cannot be considered to be viable unless it is worked on a co-operative basis or unless a man specialises in a particular aspect of farming such as horticulture or intensive pig farming.

I mentioned co-operative farming in passing and the Minister referred to it also in his brief. I hope that the new venture will be a success. It is a very humble start but, then, bíonn gach tosnú lag. If small farmers throughout the country could group themselves together and determine a workable basis for co-operation it would be to the advantage of all and would, perhaps, solve some of the Minister's problems. Persons such as Land Commission officials, local agricultural instructors, county agricultural officers and organisations such as the Agricultural Credit Corporation could be of much help in advising farmers who wish to embark on a co-operative project.

Up to now there has been what one might call a reluctance on the part of our people to engage themselves in co-operative effort with the result that progress in this sphere has been slow but this is no time for dragging our feet and our farmers must be ready for the Common Market. Already too much valuable time has been lost.

Undoubtedly, one of the greatest difficulties that we have had to contend with down through the years has been a shortage of money. No Minister has ever been able to say that he had sufficient money to run his Department as he would like, whether it was the Minister for Education or the Minister for Transport and Power or any other Minister. Similarly, the Department of Lands was starved of money down through the years and whenever there was a credit squeeze it was a great Department in which to curtail expenditure. The Minister knows that last year he had to come into the House and announce that because of financial difficulties and so on a certain cuttingback which he regretted had to be done. He regretted it as much as I did. I admired him for his honesty and truthfulness. So did the people outside who appreciate being told the truth. That is why I say that the Minister's statement on his Department gives one hope and confidence that we are slowly returning to the stage of making progress. Overall, this is a progress report and the Minister deserves his due credit and recognition in that regard.

About two years ago a discussion arose here and elsewhere about the matter of off-farm employment to supplement the incomes of uneconomic holders. I shall not say who said this first. The Official Report will decide that and I do not very much mind who said it first. The present Minister and I agreed wholeheartedly on the approach to the solution of the problems of the smallholders in the West of Ireland. It was said in many quarters that this was the ideal solution and I still think so if we could have it implemented. We have made no progress that I can see in regard to finding off-farm employment or part-time employment so far. If we have, it is very small. The problem is growing and is aggravated by the in-increasing unemployment in England. Many who traditionally emigrated in the past find it difficult to get employment now when there are about 1,000,000 unemployed in England.

It is sad that the high hopes held out at that time regarding that kind of industrial development which would provide off-farm employment have not been realised. I fear it was another case where Fianna Fáil were generous in promises but do not always carry them out. In fairness to the Minister I am sure he was quite honest in his statement and that if he had the money he would do everything possible to bring about the desired situation as gladly as I would myself. It is no pleasure to him to see rural homes closing and the people leaving the land as they have been doing for many years with the disruption and closing of schools and the decline in rural life generally. In the old days one would see the local church packed and it was the same in the dancehalls with crowds of people, young and old, attending. Now there are fewer and fewer people about.

I plead with the Minister if it is possible even at this late hour when some people, including one of the Ministers, say we may have an election, to carry out the policy on which the Minister and I are agreed. I do not want to badger him; I know he is sincere in his efforts to do his best for his constituency which is also mine. If he does that and tries to solve the problems there by creating more employment the people will remember it for him in the future and we shall all be happy about it. On the other hand, if the election comes I shall have to discuss the matter on the street corners with the Minister, perhaps, in Ballina or somewhere else. No doubt the Dáil debates can be produced and we shall have it out then.

The time has come for the Minister to tell the House and the country what programme or policy he has in regard to our proposed entry into the EEC. I have no experts to advise me except, perhaps, the neighbours who offer opinions as to how problems can be solved and the more one talks to those people the more opinions one gets, but I have my own opinion which I have expressed here and I want to repeat it clearly again. It is time for the Minister to let us know what the Land Commission propose to do in the future and what is to be the future policy. Let us not have the situation where the officials throughout the country are in doubt as to whether they will be working for the Land Commission or some other Department within a short time. There is doubt, I think, in the minds of Land Commission officials in different parts of the country as to what will be the future policy of the Commission.

When land is being acquired—this matter has been mentioned already— the Minister well knows—he has come up against the type of case that I have encountered—that land bonds are not acceptable to anybody. I hate to repeat this because I know there is a general condemnation of the Land Commission for wanting to pay for land in land bonds. People say to me: "I could offer a bit of land to the Land Commission but I am afraid it is bonds they would offer me and I do not want bonds." That is what one finds. I believe the Land Commission could pay cash. Again, it is a question of money. Whether the Minister can get hold of sufficient money to pay cash is another matter. Again, in the light of our entry into Europe it would be good business for the Land Commission to acquire land. They would get plenty of land if they paid cash. In many areas the price is not exorbitant either.

From time to time the Land Commission acquired land with a nice bungalow on it. You would think that this bungalow would be ideally suited to a young married couple. The young man might be employed by the local county council, the Land Commission or the Forestry Division. The people I have in mind who would be suitable for these houses have a rural background. I know that many girls today seem reluctant to get married and live out in the country. They want to live in a town or at least very near it. In many instances these little bungalows have been left empty for three or four years. This should not be allowed. The Land Commission should ensure that the condition of these houses is maintained. Some of them may need reconstruction at a cost of £200, £300, £400 or £500, or perhaps less. It might cost a bit more if the work is not done in time. The policy seems to be to leave these houses vacant for a number of years.

I know reasons can be given for this. I have discussed this problem with some members of the staff of the Land Commission. They were kind enough to give up their Saturdays, when they should have been off for the day, to discuss this problem, listen to criticism and give their answers politely and clearly. This is not a wholesale scandal but some of these houses are left vacant for too long. The Minister should find out the number of such houses and see if it is possible to let them or sell them.

I have always taken an interest in the forestry side of the Department's work. I am glad to see that there is a progress report there. I am particularly pleased that progress has been made on the acquisition side. Anyone who knows anything about forestry and about planting trees knows that you must have suitable land before you can plant trees. It must be inspected, or vetted if you like. The acreage must be sufficient and the location must be suitable. The price has to be agreed on and the title has to be looked up. The titles to many of the lands which are offered to the Forestry Division are doubtful. Naturally a State Department do not want to be caught on the wrong foot by writing a cheque to John Browne when it should have gone to Pat Murphy. There would be some Parliamentary Questions here and Adjournment debates, no doubt, if it were discovered that the Forestry Division had paid the wrong man.

The late Deputy Blowick introduced a Bill in which provision was made for payment in a limited number of these cases of doubtful title. An attempt was made to tidy up this problem so that land could be purchased which could not otherwise be purchased.

The Minister said:

Deputies will recall that in 1968-69 the gross area acquired was only 14,108 acres.

That was a frightening figure and if that trend had continued the Forestry Division would really have been in queer street. In fact, it must have been in queer street at that time. The Minister said:

In 1969-70 the figure rose to 25,128 acres——

that was an improvement but having regard to the previous low figure of 14,000 you could only say it was an improvement

——in 1970-71 to 34,436 acres and in the current year we hope to achieve a gross intake of some 40,000 acres.

I hope the Minister is right on that figure. It is a much more satisfactory figure and it will make it possible for the Forestry Division to continue to make progress. I am delighted to see that figure and to note that the acquisition side has improved so considerably.

Hob lawyers and alleged experts ask: "Why do you not plant this? I am sure that if the Government were minding their business and if you people were doing the right thing all this area could be planted." One would imagine that one could stand up in the Department and press a button and trees would grow on the mountain sides. These people do not know what they are talking about and they have very little appreciation of what has been done by successive Ministers. The late P.J. Ruttledge did his share when he was Minister for Lands. He had his difficulties. Later we had the late Seán Moylan, the late Joseph Blowick and other Ministers down to the present day. Progress was made and, if it was slow, that was understandable. We have not got the freedom we have for so very long. There were many difficulties in the way. During the war there was the difficulty of getting seedlings. There were 1,001 difficulties which people did not always appreciate. I appreciate what has been done by successive Ministers. If we were critical in this House about the progress, and some of us were, it was with the intention of trying to prod the Minister and the Department into action. Perhaps we should have been a little more generous with our praise and in giving credit where credit was due.

Last night I watched a television programme entitled "Feach", I think, which showed what was being done in Scariff.

Mr. S. Flanagan

"Enterprise".

Mr. O'Hara

"Feach" is another programme. I know what "Feach" means but I was not sure of the title. I watched that and that was the thought that struck me. The present Minister was not responsible nor the Minister before him, nor the Minister before that again. It goes back a good while. The truth is that an industry was established as a result of somebody's work or the work of a number of people in that region. Trees are being brought from Donegal, I understand, and from other centres, perhaps from Mayo. This industry, therefore, is giving employment in Donegal and in Clare and it is giving worthwhile indirect employment in many places throughout the country. It is amazing the amount of employment created by one industry, particularly an industry such as this which engages in export business. It is impossible to put a figure on the real value to the economy of such an industry. While I had some disagreement with the fellow putting the questions, one important point came out. The raw material used is timber, grown in our own country. I am sure it would be far better for the industry if timber were available in sufficient quantities in the Scariff region or in some part of County Clare or the adjoining counties rather than having to transport it from Donegal. However, it appears that the industry was able to carry all these additional overheads. Its products included wood for coffins. I suppose we must have wood for coffins.

Forestry is of great importance to our economy. We have in this country a climate which is suitable for the production of beef, which we are not discussing now, and also for the production of trees. We have a mild climate and a heavy rainfall, which is ideal for producing timber rapidly. I favour the idea of processing that timber within our own country on the lines of the project we saw on television last night. In the old days I often saw stacks of pit props and poles lying along docksides for weeks or months waiting to be loaded for Britain and other places. There was a very low labour content in that sort of thing. The trees were cut down, thrown into a truck and off they went. One got one's money and that was the end of it. When the timber is processed and all the employment possible given in our own country we are travelling on the right road. I sincerely hope the progress which has been made, which was referred to in the Minister's statement and about which I was very proud to hear, will continue. I hope that whoever deals with this Estimate in the future, whether it is the Minister or myself or somebody else, will be able to show further progress in this Department.

I met the Minister on the corridor a few days ago and complimented him on another aspect, one which might be passed over by many people. I was glad to hear Deputy Barry Desmond refer to it. I am referring to nature trails. I am delighted with that development. It is a wonderful thing. Parents should take their children to these places and people should invite their friends and neighbours to go along. I think if small children were taken to these places and shown the beauty of trees it would be a wonderful education. They should be told that these State forests are their own property and that any damage done to them is damage to their own property. That could then be taken up in the schools and this would create a climate of opinion which would be favourable to preserving our forests and preventing fires. The fire hazard should be stressed. The forests are a wonderful tourist attraction. Even this evening coming into Dublin by car I noticed the beauty of the countryside with the leaves falling. It was a beautiful scene and it made one realise that trees are worth planting and preserving. Our young people should be taught an appreciation of trees and we would not then have wanton damage, the burning of forests which we all regret and which is done by people who have a rather strange slant and warped minds.

The Minister has mentioned game preservation, which is very important. I live in an area where there was a fair share of game in the past but unfortunately people can cause a lot of damage to grouse, partridge and other wildfowl by burning mountains and gorse at certain times of the year when the young are being brought out. It is regrettable that this should happen. It is amazing the number of people who are interested in carrying a gun and having a shot. For many years I enjoyed it myself and was a fairly accurate shot but I suppose when one is a Member of this House for a number of years one gets fat and lazy and not too fond of climbing mountains.

The tourists who visit this country bring money with them which helps to provide education, books, transport and all the other things which children use at school. This fact should be got across to children either by their teachers or through the medium of a little propaganda leaflet. I remember being down at a by-election in Kerry. It was sleeting at the time, in fact snow fell the following morning, yet the local hotel in Glenbeigh—and although I do not wish to advertise, I must say it is a very good hotel—was packed with French tourists. We have tried a number of ways to encourage tourists to come here for their holidays but if we can get tourists to come when it is snowing we really must have something. We should value and utilise the worthwhile amenities that we have.

I am pleased that overall the Minister for Lands is able to give us a progress report, even though it is only a mild one.

Mr. Kavanagh

One of the most hopeful and fascinating things that has happened on the land in the past year has been the group farming experiment in Meath. Four families have been brought from the West and given 230 acres on a Meath estate which, according to the Minister, is equivalent to 170 acres of good land. It is hoped that this experiment will show farmers that group farming is both possible and beneficial.

The Labour Party, in its document in 1969, considered a group farming experiment of the utmost importance. We insisted at that time that this was possibly the most important way of achieving increased production from the land. The benefits accruing from the pooling of resources and the sharing of buildings and machinery seem so obvious that I wonder why the experiment was not carried out sooner on a larger scale. Group farming is common on the Continent, but the Meath experiment is the first attempt in this country to prove that group farming can be beneficial to the farming community.

The improvements and benefits are obvious. The reduction in hours makes it possible for a farmer to take a holiday without having the worry of leaving his valuable property and stock in the hands of someone who may not have the same interest in or knowledge of his problems. The problems are known to all members of the group, therefore holidays can take place on a rota basis. In the event of sickness occurring the group can do the work of the sick farmer. I believe group farming improves both the standard of living and the quality of life of the farmers. They have more time for social and educational activities and they can take part in local community activities and local politics as well. It also improves the bargaining position of the farmer because he is dealing in much larger quantities and can reap the benefits of larger production.

I would hope such group experiments would be carried out throughout the country so that farmers can see the benefits and advantages accruing from what I believe is the best way to farm. I would compliment the Minister on stealing this piece of the Labour Party policy document and putting it into use. I would suggest he read a few more pages of the first chapter of the Labour Party policy document because he would find a few more good ideas to put into effect.

The Minister did not mention the EEC during his speech. At a time when there is so much activity and so many programmes on television and articles in the Press trying to establish the pros and cons of entry into the EEC the Minister should have dealt at length with the problem of land in the EEC. I accompained a deputation of Deputies to the Parliament of the EEC within the last fortnight. We were given an opportunity to debate with members of that Parliament who are also members of their own Parliaments and who have responsibility, just like ourselves, to represent the views of ordinary people both in their own Parliaments and in the EEC Parliament. One of the questions I put was about the purchase of land if we were to enter the EEC. There seemed to be two schools of thought: the members from Luxembourg and Germany were of the opinion that entry into the EEC would mean that land within the group would be available for purchase by any of the nationals of the countries making up the Ten. There seems to be some doubt in the minds of the people about this question. I hope the Minister, when he is replying, will clear up this matter because I believe it will assume much greater importance with the farming community when the decision about whether or not to enter the Common Market has to be made.

The opinion of two of the people I spoke to was that if we entered we must accept Article 39 of the Treaty of Rome which stipulates that land could be purchased by members of the ten Common Market countries in the enlarged Community. One of the French members had a slightly different slant on it and I hope this will be the position. He said that it was possible for regulations to be drawn up by the different countries which would minimise the effects of Article 39 of the Treaty of Rome. A person would have to be an ordinary agricultural labourer and working for two years in another country before he could purchase land. This had more or less stopped the purchase of land by any of the other five countries of the present EEC. I hope we will be able to introduce legislation, if we enter the Common Market, to regulate the purchase of land by non-nationals. I suppose I would not be allowed to go into detail on that subject. I have to be convinced of the advantages of entry. I hope the Minister will be able to clear up the point about the purchase of land by non-nationals.

Mr. S. Flanagan

Surely the Deputy could elaborate on this point. I should like to hear what he has to say on this matter.

Mr. Kavanagh

I feel the purchase of land is very vital to any discussion on the Common Market and if the Minister can set our minds at rest regarding the purchase of land by non-nationals it would have a very important bearing on the attitude of mind of many of our farmers. As I said, the French have found a way out of this problem and I hope this can be applied here. If the French can do it I am sure we can also do it if we go into the Common Market. I am not an expert on the Common Market but I have my own interest in fishing and, perhaps, land. However, I imagine the Minister will have information on these points.

We discussed the problems of the Department of Lands on a Private Member's motion tabled by Deputy Tully and myself some months ago. We had many interesting contributions from both sides of the House during the debate. The demand for land is increasing but the volume of land remains constant. Certainly, in Wicklow the demand for land is increasing. The Minister gave us a promise during the debate I referred to that his policy towards migrants to the eastern counties would change in the near future. I pointed out that there were as many qualified persons in Wicklow requiring land as there were requiring transfer to Meath where migrants usually set up. We have had many fine farmers who have received land in Wicklow and they were a credit to the West. The pressure for land is mounting. There is a demand for more land from people who have small holdings.

There is also a demand by people, who are not direct owners of land, to settle on the land. We have conacre farmers. They are very common in Wicklow. They take several forms. A conacre farmer could be a man who has no land at all or he could be a very large farmer who has a lot of machinery and is interested in a group farm of his own. He hires specialists to advise him and he rents his land on the conacre system. He may not actually farm the land but because of his financial position and his knowledge of agriculture he can see the advantages of having those people do the farming for him.

The Minister should investigate this matter because I believe there are people who are getting land who should not get it. There are others who cannot afford land, who cannot afford to take chances with regard to the high prices asked for conacre land, particularly in Wicklow. I have great sympathy with the person who takes conacre land, who has no land of his own, and who rears cattle on the conacre land but who does not know if at the end of the 11 months he will be in a position to take this land again or whether he will be outbid in the auction the following year. He might then have to sell his stock at poorer prices than he would have to if he had a guarantee of land.

Under the present system this man cannot be granted a portion of an estate if he is a conacre farmer, even if he is within a mile of the estate which is in the hands of the Land Commission for sharing out. I should like to see this man included in the Department's priority for land.

During the past year I referred to the position in regard to vacant houses. I mentioned a case where a house in Rathnew on the Farrell estate was wrecked purely and simply because it remained idle for a number of years. I am glad to say I had correspondence from the Department on this. They followed the case I put forward and while I do not agree completely with the reply I received I must accept that it was in part correct. They blamed local vandals for the destruction of this property. I think it would be hard to prove whether it was locals, or as always seems to be the case, the itinerants are blamed. I believe both were responsible in this case. This house was in reasonably good repair and had water laid on but the interior was completely wrecked. It should be possible for the Land Commission to set these houses, not necessarily to farmers but to others in the area who are in need of housing. At least the structure would be preserved.

I should like to make an inquiry about another estate in County Wicklow. I refer to the Kilmacurragh estate. I have asked questions about it in the House and on each occasion either the Department or the Land Commission have replied that the estate was acquired only recently. I am aware that the house, which used to be an hotel with an adjoining hall, has been vacant for years. Local rumour is that the premises are to be reconstructed as an extension to the Shelton Abbey forestry school. These rumours will naturally fly around when people are not sure of the position, and I urge of the Minister and the Land Commission to clarify the situation one way or the other. Is the land to be broken up and divided or is it to be retained with the house being used as an extension to Shelton Abbey and the land as a forest nursery? A number of small farmers in the area are interested in the land and I hope the Minister will clarify the position in his reply. If the house is left there vacant for much longer it will become derelict and useless for any purpose.

Deputy O'Hara asked about the possibility of bringing schoolchildren into the country on nature walks. That is a good idea and this building at Kilmacurragh could be converted for use as a hostel with the adjoining hall being used to provide educational facilities.

In the debate on this Estimate a few years ago I aired most of the problems affecting my area. I should like to ask the Minister briefly to deal with the position that will obtain in the context of EEC membership. I should like to say at this point that the three Deputies representing the county have always been received with courtesy by the Land Commission. For instance, we had problems relating to the Norton estate in the west of the county but these have been solved amicably and I wish to pay a tribute to the Land Commission personnel for their work in that respect. I shall go on now to the part of the Estimate dealing with forestry.

Mr. P.J. Burke

There is a good bit of it in Wicklow.

Mr. Kavanagh

It is one of the four largest industries in Wicklow employing between three hundred and four hundred men directly and several hundred indirectly. As Deputies are aware, Wicklow is very mountainous. It comprises about 500,000 acres of which half is mountainous and, therefore, a haven of afforestation. It is a tribute to the Forestry Division to say that I was speaking to a forestry worker recently who is a member of the union of which I am branch secretary, and when I asked him if he had any problems he said: "No. Everything is going well in my area. The only problem we have is the way income tax is being deducted." This is an unusual problem for forestry workers because until a few years ago they, with road workers and farm labourers, were regarded as being in one of the Cinderella services. As a result of enlightened policy on the part of the Department and pressure from the trade union movement the forestry workers are at long last getting a fair deal.

Everybody can use more money and the forestry worker is not different from anyone else, but his main complaint is the system used by the Department to deduct tax from his pay packet. As far as I know, the system is worked on two six-monthly periods and the average wages for the first six-months are accepted as the average for the following six months. A man may fall sick and may be out of work for a week or so but the tax deduction is the same. Why cannot the PAYE system be adopted in respect of forestry workers in the same way as county council workers? The Minister has tackled other problems and if he looked into this, forestry workers throughout the country would hail him.

It is good to see in the Minister's speech that 100 extra jobs are being created as a result of extra money being made available to the Forestry Division. In the past year there have been redundancies, two or three jobs being lost in and around each forest in Wicklow. I hope the extra 100 jobs will be given to those who have lost their jobs in the past year. In one area in south Wicklow in which men were laid off two months ago I made representations and the assistant secretary looked the matter up and told me that four out of the seven would be retained. The person who brought the matter to my notice is a married man who has been 27 years with the Department. He told me that single men with far shorter service were kept on in the same area.

The haphazard method of laying-off people should be examined. I am told that the size of a man's family and his circumstances are taken into account. No doubt this is true. In the case brought to my attention I could not see that this had been applied. The position regarding redundancies in the forests should be improved. I hope that the 100 extra jobs are really jobs over and above those from which people have been let go. I ask the Minister to give preference to people who have become redundant, before any extra staff is employed for these 100 jobs. A person who has given service to the Forestry Division should be considered, irrespective of his circumstances, before a person who is new to the industry. A person who has worked for the Forestry Division should take precedence over outsiders when he is looking for reemployment. The employment content in forestry is mostly in the nurseries. There are many fine nurseries in Wicklow. I hope that the extra acreage being taken on presently by the Minister will mean that the nurseries will be free of the threat of redundancy. All indications are that there will be a demand for young trees for many years to come. If the Minister increases the acreage under forestry he will have my full support for that work.

Extra acreage has been acquired for the future development of the industry. There are a number of advantages to forestry in this policy. The forestry walks and the nature trails, as well as the wild life, the shooting and other facilities are very attractive. These facilities have become available because of the development of forestry in various areas. Such facilities attract tourists. Wicklow is fortunate in having a number of extensive forests.

Mr. P.J. Burke

Are there many deer in Wicklow?

Mr. Kavanagh

Quite a few. If one drives at night across the Wicklow Gap one may see deer on the road. There are deer around Ashford and around Enniskerry. Wild life makes an area attractive. Deer may damage some species of trees. Nevertheless they are a great attraction in Wicklow. A nature trail provides a fine amenity in a new forest. The booklets issued by the Minister about the trails should be available to city people particularly. Many city people like to walk through the forests. Last Sunday there were at least 150 cars parked on the roadside at the Glen o' the Downs. Families were walking through the forest on the east side of the road. The car park for that trail is situated near a dangerous corner. Perhaps a notice could be placed on the road warning users about the car park. Cars entering and leaving this car park are creating a dangerous hazard to other traffic. It would be a pity if this amenity and its use were the cause of a tragedy.

I was through the Devil's Glen lately. There is a car park there which is 1½ miles into the glen. One does not have to walk far to see the beauties of the area. Much work has been done there by the Forestry Division. I congratulate the Division for the advances made and for the fact that the forests are not littered with fire warning notices. The people using the forest trails are not reminded at every turn of the dangers of fire. People are aware of the dangers of striking matches and throwing away cigarettes in a forest. People do not wish to destroy the beauties of a forest. They do not wish to damage the trees.

In some instances planting has been carried out right up to the roadside. This is a hazard. Fires could be started by people throwing away cigarettes. As these trees grow up it will be hard to get a view of the surrounding area. People will be driving in dense forests seeing nothing but the nearest trees. The Minister is to be complimented on many aspects of the work of his Department. I have mentioned the problems, as I see them, of the Department of Lands and the Forestry Division. I wish to compliment the Minister and his Department on the good work they are doing for the country and particularly for Wicklow.

Minister for Lands (Mr. S. Flanagan)

I should like to thank Deputy L'Estrange for the way in which he set the tone of this debate and also to thank Deputy Tully of the Labour Party for following in the same vein. Each of them was critical but fair. Each contributed in a constructive way to this debate. All the other speakers who took part were equally constructive and I take this opportunity of thanking each of them individually. There should be very little party politics in the attitude of Members of this House to the questions of land distribution and development of our forestry and wild life.

I agree that I did not, in my opening statement, deal with what is certainly a matter of vital interest, particularly to the farming community in trying to make up their minds about entering the EEC. This is a problem just now dealt with by Deputy Kavanagh and also dealt with by other speakers earlier on. One reason for this is that there will be a White Paper produced in the fairly near future in which the overall situation with regard to the EEC and the conclusion of the negotiations by this country will be set out. Even so, since I have been specifically asked to do so, I think it right that I should say a few words on this most important matter which I also agree will determine the attitude of, perhaps, thousands of our people when the referendum on the EEC is finally held.

The situation is that two or three directives have already been adopted but do not cause any concern, or should I say any real concern, to us. One of them is that workers living and working in a particular member country for a period of two years should be entitled to purchase land. Another is that nationals of the member countries would have the right to purchase abandoned or uncultivated land. We examined both the obvious and the possibly hidden connotations of the words in each of these directives and had discussions about them through our negotiating team with the representatives of the existing member countries and are quite satisfied that these directives pose no problems for us.

There is, in fact, so far as we can ascertain, no land that could be described as abandoned or uncultivated within the meaning of the terms in the directive. For instance, grass is a crop and if a person takes grass from his neighbour, then that is sufficient to take the land out of the category of land that might be subject to acquisition. However, I should pass on from these minor directives to the major directive providing for the full right of establishment in land to the nationals of every member country. In this connection a draft directive, as I say, was submitted but has so far not been approved. The draft directive sought to make absolute the right of nationals to purchase land in all member countries and provided only that any restrictive legislation in regard to the acquisition of land by members from one country in another should not be discriminated against.

Could I quickly bring in here the allied problem of the internal acquisition of land by people considered not to be desirable purchasers? I was extremely interested to hear all the representatives of Fine Gael in this debate, particularly Deputies L'Estrange and Donnellan, strongly urging that measures should be taken by the Government to restrict the acquisition of land by people not in farming already and specifically by those living in urban areas, speculators, contractors and so on, types of people specified by Deputy Donnellan. I was particularly interested, as I say, to hear the very strong attitude taken by those Deputies in regard to this problem, because it is very much tied in with the wider question of the right of non-nationals to acquire land here. Obviously if we take legislative measures here under which there will be a general restriction on the right of people to enter farming at all, then provided these are non-discriminatory they apply equally to all members of other countries as well as our own citizens in an enlarged EEC. I want to make my point clear. We would in those circumstances, were we to introduce such legislation, then be able to cope with even a situation in which the full directive on the right of establishment on land in this country was adopted in the Community as it is now or as it will be subsequently, assuming that the applicant countries are successful in getting in.

If, therefore, we assume that it would be the wish of this House that restrictive legislation of the kind that I have mentioned should be introduced, then we would at one stroke do something which would vastly change the situation as regards the availability of land to existing members of the farming community and also the national posture as regards nationals of other countries.

All I would say at this stage, since I must now conclude for the moment, is that I personally favour the suggestion that some such restriction should be introduced. I will deal with this matter later. I should make it clear that no decision to introduce such legislation has yet been made by the Government, but it is obvious from what has already been said in this debate and to those of us who think about the entire situation here, that if the pool of land we desire farmers to have is to be available to them, some such restriction may very well have to be introduced in the near future.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.