This Vote is to be taken together with Vote No. 35, Forestry.
Committee on Finance. - Vote 34: Lands (Resumed).
Debate resumed on the following motion:
That the Vote be referred back for reconsideration.
—(Deputy L'Estrange.)
The role of the Land Commission could be divided into two main objectives: first, to allocate extra land to smallholders and those who need more land and, secondly, in the interests of the community and particularly of the weaker sections to maintain some degree of control over the land market. On both of these counts there will be an enhanced need when we join the EEC for the continuance of the Land Commission or of some body with the power of the Land Commission.
I do not agree with the suggestion that the Land Commission should be abolished, although I agree there is a case for a change in the structure of the Land Commission. There may be a case for its amalgamation into the Department of Agriculture but I do not favour the abolition of the Commission. In fact, the activities of the Land Commission need to be extended considerably and I do not think the money they get to do their work has kept pace with increased land prices.
Quite clearly, in the EEC there will be great opportunities for agricultural expansion and there will be greater need for action in the land market by the Land Commission to ensure that small farmers are not deprived of land. The Land Commission must extend and improve their operations. In his speech, Deputy L'Estrange mentioned that the Land Commission this year as against last year got only one-third of the amount of extra money necessary to maintain even last year's level of operation. It is also the case that the amount of land they acquired is declining. In the latest year for which figures are available, 1971-72, the Land Commission acquired only 16,000 acres. They allocated 25,000 acres, so in that year the land pool was declining because they were getting rid of more land than they were acquiring. That 16,000 acres was the lowest figure for land acquisition in any year in this decade; it represents virtually half of the amount acquired in 1968-69, which was 30,000 acres.
I am not blaming the Land Commission. I note they are acquiring a higher proportion of land than they were at the beginning of the decade. The point is they have not got enough money to inspect and acquire more land. The need for them to acquire more has in no way lessened in this decade. The problem is lack of finance. This is something the Minister will have to attend to at Cabinet level.
I should like to know what proportion of land marketed is represented by Land Commission acquisitions. In France, in 1969, the body equivalent to our Land Commission acquired 30 per cent of the land sold. Could we have the equivalent figures for here? There is a grave lack of statistics in regard to the land market here. We do not have any record of sales and no concrete indication of the price of land in different areas. The Land Commission are in an ideal position to provide this basic information, information vital to agricultural policy. In the post this morning I got figures from the French Ministry of Agriculture and those figures showed the average price of land this year and last year in every department in France. This is important basic information and anyone who argues that land prices are not an important determinant in agricultural policy is wrong. The Land Commission should provide this information.
In regard to getting and allocating extra land to smallholders, there are a number of ways in which this could be done. It could be done under existing Land Commission procedures involving the acquisition and re-allocation of land. It could be done by giving pensions to older farmers who wish to retire and who may want to either lease or sell their land to younger small farmers and, at the same time, get a pension. There is, too, the possibility of introducing legislation to allow of long term leases. This was not adverted to by the Minister though it was recommended in the Scully Report published this time last year. I shall come back to this later.
With regard to the provision of pensions for those who wish to retire from the land, there should be no question of older people having to leave the land or being forced off the land. This should never happen and I would be utterly opposed to any such policy. We fought for the right of people to stay on the land. However, older married farmers and single men, with no successors in many cases, are leading a miserable existence on the land without any incentive to work it properly. They have to hold on because it is their only security. If alternative security were offered they would take it. The obvious solution is to provide them with a pension to supplement whatever they may get from the sale or leasing of the land. The existing pension scheme has been a failure. Its terms have been totally inadequate in that all a man could get was the sale price of the land. That was no real incentive. It is proposed by the EEC that the man should get the sale price or the lease value of the land and, in addition, a pension subsidised by the State plus any other benefits he may have under the social welfare code. This is very important.
The present scheme has been totally inadequate. The proposed EEC scheme is much more attractive and we will be in a position to implement this scheme. We will be eligible for 65 per cent aid from the EEC fund in regard to all areas designated backward areas. On the criteria laid down it is probable we would be able to get most of the country so designated. We will be able to operate this scheme from April next. Under it the farmer will be able to do one of two things: he can sell or he can lease the land for at least 12 years; he will get whatever price he can and, in addition, he will get this indemnity. Up to £375 in the case of a married man and £265 in the case of a single man may be indemnified as to 65 per cent by the EEC. Of course, the Irish Exchequer can go further and provide extra, but it will not be indemnified up to 65 per cent in respect of that extra amount. This would provide a worthwhile incentive and could result in the release of a great deal of land held down at the moment by people who are not able to use it properly.
With more land available small farmers and their families would no longer be held back simply because they cannot get more land. There is the problem that our legislation does not provide for the type of long term lease envisaged in the directive. There were suggestions, originally from the Irish Farmers' Association and subsequently from Dr. Scully, that we should introduce legislation to allow for long term leases. Because we have not done so there will be a term of this EEC pensions scheme to which I have referred which we will not be able to implement. Is that right?
We do not need legislation.
We do not need legislation to introduce long term issues?
If the Land Commission do not take it from them for leasing it for 12 years.
They do not do that.
No, but they could. Under existing regulations if the farm is leased for 12 years the Land Commission are entitled to take the land because it was not being used properly.
The problem of squatter's title will be established.
Not if they are paying for it, and the Deputy should know that.
We do not need legislation to implement long term leases.
If that is the case, I am very pleased to hear it. It is something I should have known and did not. There is a problem in regard to the introduction of long term leases in other countries, and particularly in France, where they have found it necessary to introduce some sort of tribunal to ensure that fair rents are maintained. I am not sure whether we have the machinery to do that. In itself, that may be a disincentive to the institution of such a scheme.
It was not clear to me when I read Dr. Scully's report that certain action by the Government was not necessary to introduce long term leases. My impression was that he envisaged that a minimum tenancy period should be established, and that there should be a system for the establishment of equitable rents, and a number of matters such as that. He also envisaged something which I felt was not very wise, perhaps, and which would involve too much bureaucratic interference, namely, the system of taking land back from people who have leased it and who are not working it properly. If we are to get into the area of interfering administratively to that degree in the land market, there will be no end to the amount of civil service work which will have to be done.
The Land Commission have been doing that all the time.
This is in relation to every lease. If every lease is to be supervised in this way—and I am not saying it is an undesirable thing in itself—the amount of interference in people's normal farming affairs would be such that they would be constrained to be very conservative in their outlook. This would not be for the best.
However, that is something of a digression. The important point I am making is that funds are available up to 65 per cent for the establishment of a very attractive pension scheme, which is recognised by everybody as being desirable for releasing land held by people who are not working it to the best of their ability, and who would like to give it up if they could have the assurance of a secure and attractive pension scheme. This money will be available from next April and, to my knowledge, the Government are doing little or nothing about getting it.
Before the scheme comes into operation, it must be fully approved by the EEC, and it must be fully discussed with the farming organisations. From the date of the submission of the proposal to the EEC they have a full two months to reply. If the scheme is to come into operation in April, we will have to have our proposal in before February to get a reply from them by April. Indeed, we will probably have to have it in by January if there is to be proper flexibility. If we are to discuss it with the farming organisations and other interested organisations, or to discuss it in this House, or if it requires new legislation, how much time will be needed? Surely the details of a scheme whereby the Minister proposed to implement the terms of this directive to get the 65 per cent aid, should be available by now. If not, are the Government genuinely serious about getting the benefits from the EEC funds which they made so much of in the EEC campaign leading up to the referendum on 10th May?
It is provided by the EEC that farmers should be encouraged to adopt a development plan which, over a six year period, would raise their income to an income comparable to that earned by non-agricultural people in the same area. Farmers will be encouraged to adopt such a plan by two means. They will be offered low interest loans, and the reduction of interest will be subsidised by the EEC to the extent of 25 per cent. The remainder will be provided by the Irish Government. They will also get a priority in the allocation of any lands which are released under the pension scheme to which I referred.
This development plan has been advocated by the committee on State expenditure in relation to agriculture, on the same principle as the small farms incentive bonus scheme. Indeed, the IFA have advocated that, when land is being allocated by the Land Commission, it should be allocated to people who have a development plan, or who are prepared to produce a development plan on how they will use this land in the context of their enlarged holdings to increase their incomes over a period. The discipline of producing such a plan would ensure that the best people were getting the land.
As I say, we will get EEC money to get such plans going and this money will be available from April of next year. If we are to get the money, a scheme has to be submitted to the EEC by February at least if we are to have a reply within the two months to which I referred. We have no information whatever about what scheme the Government are putting forward to the EEC. We have no idea of what they intend to do. They have hardly discussed their ideas about implementing the directive with anybody. Quite clearly, they are letting us down. There is an opportunity to get EEC money for this very desirable development on which everybody is agreed and I fear that, because of the inefficiency and inaction of the Government, we will not get this money which we are entitled to get and which we should get.
I have some worries about the operation of the directive as it is available to us. The land consolidation measures which are envisaged provide for aid to be given from the EEC funds for irrigation but they do not provide for aid to be given for land drainage. Land drainage is very important. We have had innovations in the field of land drainage with the introduction of the deep plough in Ballyferriter which, as has been shown, can turn very bad land in mountain areas into very productive grassland. Obviously there is a great new field opening up there for improving bad land in the west of Ireland.
If land consolidation measures are being undertaken in such areas, we should fight to get EEC aid for such land drainage works. It is wrong that aid should be given for irrigation, which is of general interest on the Continent and which is not of interest to us here, and not given for drainage work which is a complementary activity, only on wetter land, which is carried out here and is not carried out to the same degree on the Continent. There is a bias in the directive in favour of Southern Europe in this context, which should not be there. I hope the Minister will endeavour to have it removed.
As I was saying, I have some worries that the smaller farmers will not be able to participate in this development plan. To a significant degree this remains to be decided, because the Government have not yet produced their interpretation of the terms of the EEC directive. The exclusion or otherwise of very small farmers from the aids available under these development plan ideas depends on how certain phrases in the directive are interpreted by the Government.
There is one point here about which I am worried. The basic criterion is defined in Article 4 (1) of Directive 72/159 EEC of 17th April, 1972:
The development plan provided for in Article 2 (1) (d) must demonstrate that upon its completion the holding undergoing modernisation will be capable of attaining in principle for one or two labour units of least an earned income comparable to that received for non-agricultural work in the region.
The Irish Government will have the job of defining what is a comparable income in the particular area and a lot depends on what they define as the comparable income and whether particular farmers should be excluded or included.
It is also set out in Article 4 (a):
The Member States shall fix an adequate return on the capital invested in the holding.
Is this adequate return on capital to be something which must be made up in addition to getting a comparable income? Must a farmer first get an adequate return on capital and then obtain a comparable income? If it is the case that a farmer has to achieve an adequate return on capital and comparable income as well, I can see difficulties in that many farmers would be excluded who might be able to make a comparable income if they were allowed to include as part of their income return on capital, but if they have to make a separate provision in relation to return on capital, the scheme could exclude a number of farmers. If that is not the interpretation. I would like to know what is the purpose of putting a provision for an adequate return on capital in the directive at all.
I should also like to know what is going to be determined as a labour unit because a farmer has to obtain an adequate return on capital for each person working on the farm, and if a farmer has a son of 15 or 16 working with him on the land, will he have to earn two comparable incomes from the farm because his son is working on it or will there be some allowance made for the fact that the son is young and in any normal industry would not be expected to be earning the full rate of remuneration? A lot depends on the interpretation put on that provision.
There is another point in relation to this provision. If a farmer is to qualify, he must be able to obtain the comparable income in the six year period and must be able to show that he can do so before being allowed to participate in the scheme, if he can do it without working more than 2,300 working hours per year. I would be very interested to know how it is to be worked out whether a person is working 2,300 working hours per year or not. I can imagine that in relation to farming, it would be very difficult to determine how many working hours a man is going to do per year, and if this provision is included, I can see that it would allow for great difference in application in different parts of the country. If you have an instructor who took a very rigid line, he could exclude many farmers from it on the ground that they would have to work 3,000 hours a year, whereas another man might take a more lenient view and allow many people in even though they might be working a larger number of hours on the ground that it really was not working but things they would have to do anyway. There is also a provision in this directive that its terms can be varied from one part of the country to another by the Government.
Information on all these questions must be available soon. It may sound rather technical and rather boring material to be dealing with but this scheme should be in operation by next April. Money will be available for its application from next April and it cannot be brought into operation until these points are ironed out, the scheme submitted to Brussels, the scheme approved by Brussels and any necessary legislative changes introduced here. Only when all these stages have been completed can the scheme be introduced and all that has to be done between now and April, but the Government have given virtually no indication of what they are doing about it or whether they are going to endeavour to do it at all. This is irresponsible on their part.
I should also like to know how it is proposed to fit in the existing allocation policy of the Land Commission into the context of these development plans. Will it be the situation in future that only farmers who are participating in a development plan under this directive will qualify for extra land or will land still be given to other farmers who have not qualified for these development plans? To what degree will the adoption of this legislation in regard to development plans and incentives for older farmers to leave agriculture affect the operation of the 45 acres maximum which the Land Commission at present operate as the maximum level to which they will bring a farm?
With regard to the one mile limit and the provision that a farmer can be allocated land only if he is within one mile of an estate, this provision to my mind is outdated. It was a limit set in 1930, but transport and farm transport in particular has improved significantly since then and the man living two miles from an estate is just as well able to work it as a man living one mile away and he should be considered equally. I should like to know, if we adopt this new development plan concept in respect of land allocation, will the one mile limit be retained and will it be the position that only farmers with development plans within one mile of an estate will qualify?
There is very great concern in the country at the moment as to the effect of the EEC on the buying of land by foreigners and in particular as to the buying of land by non-farmers who have maybe made money in other areas of activity and who in this era of inflation, see land as the most secure investment possible and are buying land as if they were buying stocks and shares, and at the same time depriving small farmers who need extra land of the opportunity of getting it. We have a twin problem here. I think that the operations of native speculators in land purchase are a good deal more harmful to the interests of small farmers than is or would be the problem of foreign purchasers. I may be proved wrong in that but I think it is the native speculators who are even more dangerous to the interests of small farmers. I feel that in the EEC it will not be possible for us to discriminate between foreign and native speculators in regard to agricultural land but we will be able to introduce some controls on speculation in agricultural land per se, regardless of whether it is carried out by foreigners or otherwise.
As the Minister rightly says, the existing provision in regard to the purchase by nationals of other States of land in other EEC countries are reasonably favourable. The present position is that nationals of one country can buy in another EEC country land which has been left abandoned or uncultivated for more than two years and nationals of one EEC country who have worked as paid agricultural workers in another EEC country for an unbroken period of at least two years have the right to acquire farms in the latter country. As everybody knows, there is not much land left abandoned or uncultivated in this country for more than two years and there are not very many foreign speculators who would be prepared to come here and work as agricultural workers at our rate of pay for two years in order to be able then to acquire land.
They would not necessarily have to work here. The provision is that they work in any country of the Community as paid agricultural workers.
I am quoting from the Government's publication in regard to this matter.
Was that the one published before the referendum?
Yes.
What about the one issued afterwards?
It says that nationals of one EEC country who have worked in another EEC country as paid agricultural workers for an unbroken period of at least two years have the right to acquire a farm or farms in the latter country. I take it that is in that other EEC country. However, if Deputy Tully's interpretation is correct I hope the Minister will indicate clearly that this is so because if the Deputy is correct we have reason to be worried. However, I do not think he is right although he has been right on occasion.
Thank you. Does the Deputy remember the occasion? I was right regarding the Mansholt plan.
We will have to introduce some form of control to deal with speculation in agricultural land. The existing position in relation to the purchase of land by non-nationals, which is reasonably acceptable from our point of view, is not likely to continue indefinitely because there is a draft directive before the EEC giving full right to non-nationals to buy land. This was regardless of these conditions and was submitted to the Council in January, 1969. As the Minister says, it is not likely to come up for decision until we are full members but if it were put through in its present form, it would mean that people could come in here and buy land easily. If we are to prevent that we should have some form of control in existence prior to such directives being agreed.
It is important that whatever controls we are to have are not introduced after the EEC have agreed on this directive because if we wait until then, the EEC will say that we are only introducing them to defeat the purpose of the directive which they had agreed. They would say that in introducing such legislation to counter the effects of the directive they had agreed we were acting in a fashion which would be out of line with the spirit of the community and they might well rule that our particular legislation, designed to control speculation by foreigners in particular, was against the spirit of the Community.
I would like to hear from the Minister on this aspect. This area is a very difficult one and I would not like to condemn the Minister for being cautious in regard to it because there is a strong tradition here in this regard and people have fought for the right of free sale of land. That was one of the "Three Fs" and if we interfere with the right of people who wish to sell their land and get a good price for it, there will be an outcry. It is very important that we balance the right of the seller to sell at a good price against the right of local small farmers who wish to acquire extra land. Every landowner is anxious to know that should he wish to sell, he would be able to command a reasonable price. Therefore, we must balance the two interests while preserving the basic interest fought for by the traditional Land League to establish the right of free sale. A possible way in which this problem could be approached is that areas in the country could be designated as congested areas, not in the sense in which they are designated at present, which is unduly rigid, but areas where there is a particularly high concentration of small farms could be designated as such and in these areas the only people who could buy land would be people who met one of the following four criteria: (1) that they were existing farmers in the area in question; (2) that they were people from outside the area who had completed a year's training in agriculture or who had completed some form of improved course in agriculture; (3) that they were small farmers who were prepared to adopt a development plan as proposed here, or (4) that they had some other particular proposal for the setting up of an enterprise on the farm that they proposed to buy which was unique and one that could not be carried out by the existing farmers in the area. This might provide some form of check on speculation in land in areas where small farmers need extra land.
There are some who would say that this goes too far in imposing control on the sale of land while there are others who would say that it does not go far enough. I do not know which criticism would be the more correct but no doubt certain criticism could be levelled at each of the four proposals that I have put forward.
I propose to devote the next section of my speech to long-term land leases. The Minister has said there is nothing to prevent such long-term leases from being set up. If that is the case I will be anxious to hear why everyone is setting land on the 11-month lease even if they intend setting it for, say, four or five years in succession. There must be vacant possession for one month each year. Surely there must be something preventing people from setting land on a long-term basis. I thought I knew what was the reason but I am afraid I do not. Is there anything the Land Commission can do to encourage farmers to lease land on a long-term basis? If a man has land for only 11 months he is not in a position to make any proper investment in it. It is probable that he will run it down in trying to get the best from it without putting anything into it in the nature of fertilisers. If he were to carry out any improvement works he would need to know that he could have the land for about 12 years in order to get a return for any such work.
There is the problem also that many small farmers cannot get enough land because the only way of getting it at the moment is either by leasing it on the 11-month system, which is unsatisfactory as I have indicated or, alternatively, buying land and if they buy land they must raise so much money to meet the purchase price that they have no money left to invest in working the land properly. The obvious answer to that problem is that, instead of having a huge outlay on the purchase price, they should be able to lease the land for 12 years or some such period. It has been found all over Europe that long-term leases are the answer. We need to know why long-term leases have not developed here. I suspect that there is something in the operation of the law that prevents this happening.
I know of numerous cases where people lease land for seven years.
We need to introduce some way of encouraging more people to do that. Maybe it is this lack of encouragement that is preventing this being done now because there is not some encouragement for them to do so. I feel also that there is a need to bring more influence by farmers and people directly involved in agriculture to bear on the operations of the Land Commission. It was suggested by the Irish Farmers' Association that there should be a number of farmers as Land Commissioners. This would bring people who have practical knowledge of farming into the Land Commission at the highest level. That might be considered in any restructuring proposed.
In France there is a body equivalent to the Land Commission which works on the basis of regional authorities responsible for a group of three or four departments. These regional authorities are in the form of limited companies. The people who run them are farmers in the area. Land allocation is made by farmers in the area. They do not make allocations in small areas, but in very big regional areas. Local farmers in a particular parish would not be allocated land in that area. In a province like Connaught there would be a board of farmers from that province who would make decisions. The obvious danger is that they would be open to pressure and charges of favouritism. Land Commissioners are not open to such charges. On the Continent the farmers are asked to make a decision on a particular case. They are told the facts of the case, told of the merits of the applicants and details of the size of the estate, but they are not given the name of each applicant or the location of the estate. They are told that X estate is to be divided between applicants A, B, C, D, and E. They are asked whom they would choose on merit. This system has been found to work well in France. It may be a scheme which would not work well here, but perhaps we should ask why it has worked so well in France.
It is generally accepted that the people who understand agriculture best are those engaged in it. These people should be involved in the allocation of land. The policy of the Land Commission should be integrated into some form of rural development authority operating not only the functions of the Irish Land Commission but also those of the land projects, farm buildings schemes and advisory services. Such authorities should operate in each region.
The Deputy will appreciate that advocacy of legislation or criticism of existing legislation is not relevant on an Estimate like this. The administration of each Department, as such, is the only matter for discussion.
The setting up of a rural development authority would be a new form of procedure.
In an Estimate debate we cannot have advocacy of legislation.
The setting up of such an authority, which would give farmers a direct say in the running of the Land Commission, is the policy of my party and is something which should be considered at the earliest possible opportunity.
I would like to refer to group farming. The Land Commission have initiated an experiment near Athboy among a group of four farmers. They are proposing to set up another experiment near Kilcock. These are good developments. I welcome this action of the Land Commission. These farms could provide examples to farmers who might wish to come together voluntarily. They would have these experimental farms to refer to. They would be able to see the Land Commission project and how their farms are worked; and without the intervention of the Land Commission they could form groups with other farmers in their own areas.
I have a theoretical criticism of that. It is that they are experimenting with complete integration of the whole holding. They have one set of farm buildings all held in common and the land is worked in common. The Land Commission should consider experimenting also with less developed forms of grouping. Where the Land Commission are allocating an estate to three or four farmers they might set up a joint milking parlour solely to see how it would work in that particular enterprise. That would provide another form of co-operation which could be seen as a pilot scheme and could be examined by farmers interested in that form of limited co-operation. Different levels of group co-operation should be set up in different parts of the country. Different experiments would then be available to farmers for examination. If we are anxious to get group farming started, co-operation should be on a small scale, perhaps in relation to one particular line of operation on a farm rather than by farmers coming together and pooling their whole operation immediately. If the Land Commission are interested in providing a showcase for group farming the most relevant form of showcase would be one involving a limited form of co-operation which small farmers might be able to adopt immediately. The Land Commission should consider that.
It is also to be noted that in France there has been a tendency for the number of farmers involved in the group to get smaller. Originally there were five or six farmers in each group. Now the average number of people participating is two or three. The existing group of Grennanstown, near Athboy, consists of four farmers. I understand that another group is to be set up near Kilcock, and is also to consist of three or four people. Some new form of grouping consisting of two farmers should be experimented with. This would have the added benefit of leaving additional land available for local people who need additional land in a particular area. There are many local people who need extra land. If a group farm is to be set up a small farm should be set up which would provide information on group farming with only two people involved. This would leave a certain amount of land available for allocation to other smallholders. That would be desirable.
We must look at the problem of commonages. This is not a problem which affects my constituency to any considerable degree. It is something which was mentioned in the Scully Report. It was mentioned that there were tremendous problems in areas where there were commonages which were not properly used just because they were held in common. If people owned them they would obviously have much greater interest in developing them properly. It was shown that in Galway only 22.7 per cent of the farmers make full use of available grazing rights. It was also shown that on average land held in common is worked to a less intensive degree than land owned fully by an individual. I wonder if the Land Commission can do anything about this problem. Many of these commonages would consist of the sort of land which would lend itself to intensive reclamation. The Land Commission could, possibly, find agreement for the acquisition of these commonages with a view to their reclamation and reallocation in parcels to local holders who had rights on the commonages and who were interested in getting some of the reclaimed land. Persons who have rights on the commonages but who are not interested in getting any of the reclaimed land could receive some cash compensation for giving up their rights. I am surprised that this problem has been referred to in the Scully Report as a serious problem. Could the Minister tell me what he proposes to do about it?
There are a couple of large commonages in Meath.
In conclusion, I would say—and this is the important point I wanted to make—there is money available from the EEC for land re-allocation and for improving the structure of land. This money can be available to us from next April. To the best of my knowledge, we are in danger of not getting that money because the Government are not doing the necessary ground work.
This is possibly one of the most important Estimates to come before the Dáil. Land is costing from £500 to £600 an acre. If the Land Commission purchase land at that price on the eastern seaboard future allottees will find themselves in the position of having to pay £50 an acre. Deputy Tully last night referred to figures of £20 and £25 an acre. I do not know where the Land Commission could allocate land at that figure.
That is what they are doing.
Is the Deputy talking about halving the annuity? They are not halving the annuity in regard to land on the eastern seaboard.
No, they are not.
It is happening only in the west of Ireland.
On the eastern seaboard when they bring in migrants, they are. That is the highest I find being paid.
Farmers will find themselves in an impossible position unless the annuities are halved as is the case in the west of Ireland.
I have been reading the Official Report and I notice that Deputy Donnellan said on 5th December at column 1121:
Although part of the land west of the Shannon is of poor quality, there are many areas where the land is as good as in any part of Ireland but the Land Commission do not appear to make any effort to acquire that land.
This is getting back to the 1965 Land Act. Farmers in the west of Ireland still get the privilege of paying half the annuity. This is something that I do not agree with. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. There should be total halving of the annuity. Even £25 an acre is too much. In a case where the Land Commission pay £500 an acre for land the annuity is £50. I doubt if any farmer would be in a position to pay that amount.
At column 1084 of the Official Report of 5th December, Deputy L'Estrange said:
The halving of the land annuity was one of the biggest boosts to Fianna Fáil in the past. It certainly helped them with the farmers. In the 1965 Land Act they changed that so far as people getting land outside the congested areas are concerned.
The Deputy went on to describe people coming from the west of Ireland to Longford and Westmeath where the annuities are halved for them but where local farmers have to pay the full annuity.
I would ask the Minister to have a further look at this matter. The halving of the annuities must be extended to all farmers. I refer to land that is costing £500 or £600 and which will cost more in future.
Now I want to deal with the subject of payment by the Land Commission for land in land bonds. I notice in yesterday's paper that 9¾ per cent land bonds are bringing £96 per £100. If paid in such land bonds the farmer will lose £100 on a £10,000 deal. That is most unfair and unjust. Even the Minister for Finance will not recognise them. They will not be accepted for death duties. This is unjust. The sooner land bonds are scrapped or at least people are guaranteed par for them the better. Prior to the 9¾ per cent land bonds people were getting only, perhaps, £80 per £100 worth of bonds. The Land Commission should pay for land they acquire for cash or at least guarantee par for land bonds.
I should like to know what the Minister thinks about the price being paid for land on the open market. If the Land Commission pay £500 or £600 per acre for land how does the Minister expect farmers to pay £50 per acre for it unless he halves annuities? This is something the Land Commission will have to face up to in the future because land prices are going up day by day.
Deputy Bruton spoke about our entry to the EEC. I understand a decision was recently taken in the Department of Lands that they will still continue to recognise 45 acres as an economic holding. I have been told this on good authority. The Land Commission must have gone daft. I would like to see some of the people who made this decision living on a 45 acre farm and expecting to have an income comparable with that of their counterparts in industry or anywhere else.
The Deputy is probably right but a former Fianna Fáil Taoiseach said that anyone who could not make a living on 10 acres was not a farmer.
I am talking about the future, not going back into the past. The Minister in 1970 at the Ard-Fheis said that he considered that an economic holding at that time was in the region of 70 acres. I am talking about first-class arable land. If the Land Commission still recognise 45 acres as an economic holding I do not know where they are going. I should like to hear the Minister's view on this.
I think the Land Commission are making a mistake in regard to the division of land. If the Land Commission acquire a 20 acre holding and there are two local farmers with perhaps, 25 acres each, the Land Commission's policy has been to divide that 20 acres between the two farmers, leaving them with a total of 35 acres each. There is the possibility that they will never get another acre of land. This looks good politically but it is ludicrous. The Land Commission should give all the land to one farmer and give the other one an economic holding somewhere else. We are lucky in the constituency which I represent in that we have no migration into it from outside counties. There are always sufficient suitable applicants for land within the county. To give a farmer with 25 acres ten more on which to rear and educate a family in this day and age is not right. It is suicide as far as the farmers are concerned. The purpose of the Land Commission is to create economic holdings but instead of that they are creating more uneconomic holdings. I do not think there is a future for 25 and 30 acre farmers and we might as well face up to this and be honest. The Land Commission are deceiving small farmers by dividing land in this way. It looks good politically to give a man five or ten acres but it is putting a noose around his neck for his lifetime if he is not to get any more land in the foreseeable future.
The Land Commission are doing one good thing and that is in regard to co-operative farming. This must be encouraged. We all accept that a landholder, a man who owns two acres upwards, is a proud man and, rightly so, but farmers in the future will have to pocket their pride. The idea that Johnny down the road who has 20 acres has a tractor and I must get a tractor, too, should be discouraged. This sort of thing is uneconomic. The Land Commission must be commended on creating co-operative farming in Meath and I understand they are setting up one or two other co-operatives. This should be given every chance. Whatever chance small farmers have it is through co-operation.
In the past when the Land Commission acquired a farm and set it for perhaps, five or six years by the time they divide it, it had run out completely. I am glad to see that now at long last they are putting the land back in proper heart by manuring et cetera. It is not before its time.
Some of it.
Perhaps the Minister would clarify the position in relation to the purchase of land by foreigners. Many people are under the impression that foreigners will not be able to buy land here in the future. I am referring in particular to farms of 100 or 200 acres and I should like to know if foreigners will have the right to purchase land after we enter the EEC. There is the impression among certain people that the 1965 Land Act will prevail and that foreigners will not be allowed to purchase land. This matter is of some concern to farmers and perhaps the Minister would clarify the position.
With regard to the Forestry Division, the Minister has stated that the gross area acquired during 1971-72 was the largest to date. After 40 years negotiation the Forestry Division acquired the Blackstairs Mountains in my constituency and I am wondering if that acquisition has accounted for the large area that was acquired.
I am glad that the grants for tree planting have been increased but I do not think that the amount is adequate. There is a considerable area of bogland that is privately owned and it would be helpful if the grants were increased to a more realistic amount.
With regard to the J.F. Kennedy Park, the Minister stated that arrangements are being made for an extension of the arboretum within the park formerly reserved for a horticultural college. This is a disappointment because many people thought a horticultural college would be established in the area. I should like to know the reason for the change in plan.
I should be grateful if the Minister could tell the House the number of visitors who visited the park during the past year. The Forestry Division must be commended for their work in this park which has been the subject of favourable comment by all who have visited it.
I do not think the Department have acquired sufficient land in the North Slob area in County Wexford for wildlife preservation and I should like to have the Minister's views on this. I should also like to hear the Minister's comments on the work that has been done in this area on wildlife preservation because I do not think it has been quite as successful as we had hoped.
Finally, I would ask the Minister to examine the question of land bonds and also the future of the Land Commission and their activities regarding the purchase of land.
I should like to ask the Minister to publish this phantom Bill which we have been hearing about since Conservation Year in 1970—the Bill for the protection of wildlife. Repeated demands have been made to the Government and to the Minister to bring this Bill before the House. It is needed urgently; otherwise much of the wildlife will be extinct by the time the Bill is published and debated. The Minister promised the Bill in mid-1970 and surely the draft has been completed now. It is about time the phantom Bill of 1970, 1971 and 1972 was published and circulated to Deputies. Even if it is done now it cannot be adopted before 1973 and, therefore, it should be done as soon as possible.
I move to report progress.
Progress reported; Committee to sit again.
With the permission of the Chair, I should like to raise on the Adjournment this evening the action being taken by the Government in respect of thalidomide children.
The Chair will communicate with the Deputy.